IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -12 feedback deadline

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Wed, 16 February 2011 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4707F3A6DE1 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:57:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJ5HtIVGZKu6 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 774363A6EB2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 13692 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2011 21:57:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.21) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 16 Feb 2011 21:57:50 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT003.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.21]) with mapi; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:57:43 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:57:35 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -12 feedback deadline
Thread-Index: AcvOIfJAGmn/yIwbT66vW0bOFYoGQQAAmnbQ
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723445A91D3FE9@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723445A8D6254D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTinMjQW26mLkoN7oMdLWLGAHp0_O9LbVi13RpMJB@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723445A91D3EE9@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTimjWkO8o+z+P=AKpyYkSjTh6oS7uM9N0JwR_vR6@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723445A91D3F44@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTi=tvwsR=_EhPRkYEwC+ERwRCNN2aAWDqRDvwx8B@mail.gmail.com> <FFDFD7371D517847AD71FBB08F9A315638493F514F@SP2-EX07VS06.ds.corp.yahoo.com> <AANLkTimxhoK1vt8HwSF9dvu4Z5xjqrLLb2SULj9pp=9b@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=DtgpWNyEKBg=0GhOWuqSvzF5q0SJQgfZNRm8M@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723445A91D3F9A@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTindJ3oGpggvZ7jRJ4TRhTRomyZG+DwLOfbHD2kq@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTindJ3oGpggvZ7jRJ4TRhTRomyZG+DwLOfbHD2kq@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -12 feedback deadline
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:57:22 -0000

Feel free to propose alternative preamble for the implicit and authorization code sections, describing the characteristics of what they are good for. It should fit in a single paragraph. Such a proposal would fit right in with last call feedback to -13.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marius Scurtescu [mailto:mscurtescu@google.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:39 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: Brian Campbell; OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -12 feedback deadline
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
> <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> > The reason why we don't return a refresh token in the implicit grant is
> exactly because there is no client authentication...
> 
> Not sure that's the main reason. AFAIK it is because the response is sent
> through the user-agent and it could leak.
> 
> 
> > These are all well-balanced flows with specific security properties. If you
> need something else, even if it is just a tweak, it must be considered a
> different flow. That doesn't mean you need to register a new grant type, just
> that you are dealing with different implementation details unique to your
> server.
> 
> The Authorization Code flow, with no client secret, is perfectly fine for Native
> Apps IMO.
> 
> Marius

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email