Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax
Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 11:48 UTC
Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC334127A90 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 04:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pingidentity.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id prAoojsoq-VO for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 04:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x230.google.com (mail-pf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC888127735 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 04:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id w189so68432969pfb.0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 04:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=gmail; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/JVsybUzYGX6oIYYSYCkLdKh+ya4YYQhQT2jgIzYeQA=; b=NUv9BYEEhuF9bDL2kj3NVipbC8bg3/jNZljnZzged2tql+69YSwuTYap0ZT9huK2Qr YMWislXUbAdUoElTFRLHju4xiH5z4RDtmNLRb4Bv3/409J08QuqNImmSKz3K6YZGcBvM F9i1fSHLmzU8/O28Q1jBAWmCtCxAAjwjP09r8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/JVsybUzYGX6oIYYSYCkLdKh+ya4YYQhQT2jgIzYeQA=; b=Y5iPGTDrRqZAnROGx+iIuSzW0FOmlcqlf/LUJJLHs71CwsFfj3EAzY57QLnibx+GCn o8ZPzXuPVQ4mFy2/I384h8hCsuzr1WyqQs34Txu1yX47AuFVvD3h0euMJik7oH8xbFEI Q/eZArRKh5jrT0r90nhx59/5Z+k7f7N8wBc12LpI53+Ud60M+E2SJNAPUjoGKE36q5Ec mMzatnAY29SZ0H0e72744HcqAZJjqjOXE5onXZzKcE2TRdqVj8qkG57CfjNUOwbuukhM BYYcChcK7Mc0ZUkIeIsF7QF3hXeGzP/QbEPuGGt5yq98gIBx14aFkmkdxbCXr6A9iGea BIwQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ldOA1S8kbiGwcuCfOrxG7I+aa6qZ86hc7m2LIG/P9sh9DVnbKlRg+4cwNm4XTd8DZxo7XNd5bA1RF78Sc0
X-Received: by 10.99.119.2 with SMTP id s2mr36818938pgc.153.1489405690209; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 04:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.163.162 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 04:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAP42hCUBKt=cHRQ8jKETRzmLxZsnKbxthtSE=xmXhLpGkH+rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AEE72C0E-6FFA-4BE5-87EB-D2EBF891211E@mit.edu> <CAAP42hBAaAMf0ojSBYL55O1GiUZ4Hx2Z43jRoWZqsm6=HVCVNQ@mail.gmail.com> <0CAB3A6D-5B80-41DF-9499-35D21D98F7B7@mit.edu> <CAAP42hCUBKt=cHRQ8jKETRzmLxZsnKbxthtSE=xmXhLpGkH+rg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 05:47:39 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCRsF6cdzypnV8a0hpqRDLetgKBC++EjLqQ5u_c5b17tfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c04281784a9054a9b4975"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/2AyhAIShyfFQIzhlvUGntsiLBg0>
Cc: "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:48:12 -0000
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 1:54 PM, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote: > >> >> >> Secondly, I had a question about the “response_type” parameter to the >>> device endpoint. This parameter is required and it has a single, required >>> value, with no registry or other possibility of extension. What’s the >>> point? If it’s for “parallelism”, I’ll note that this is *not* the >>> authorization endpoint (as the user is not present) and such constraints >>> need not apply here. >>> >> >> Good points here. At a guess, it bled in from the OAuth spec. If it's not >> needed, we should remove it. >> >> >> I’d vote for removal, I don’t see the point. >> > +1 on removal of the “response_type” parameter from the Device Authorization Request
- [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax William Denniss
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax William Denniss
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax William Denniss
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax William Denniss
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax William Denniss
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Code expiration and syntax Justin Richer