Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

Yes, but that’s the simplest thing to determine – try the token and see whether it works or not.

From: Thomas Broyer [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:43 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: <[e-mail]>; George Fletcher; Phil Hunt
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item


Decoding a token with a specific format wouldn't tell you whether the token is still live: it could have been revoked before its expiration.
Le 30 juil. 2014 02:16, "Mike Jones" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :
Did you consider standardizing the access token format within that deployment so all the parties that needed to could understand it, rather requiring an extra round trip to an introspection endpoint so as to be able to understand things about it?

I realize that might or might not be practical in some cases, but I haven’t heard that alternative discussed, so I thought I’d bring it up.

I also second Phil’s comment that it would be good to understand the use cases that this is intended to solve before embarking on a particular solution path.

                                                            -- Mike

From: OAuth [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of George Fletcher
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:25 PM
To: Phil Hunt; Thomas Broyer
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item

We also have a use case where the AS is provided by a partner and the RS is provided by AOL. Being able to have a standardized way of validating and getting data about the token from the AS would make our implementation much simpler as we can use the same mechanism for all Authorization Servers and not have to implement one off solutions for each AS.

Thanks,
George
On 7/28/14, 8:11 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
Could we have some discussion on the interop cases?

Is it driven by scenarios where AS and resource are separate domains? Or may this be only of interest to specific protocols like UMA?

From a technique principle, the draft is important and sound. I am just not there yet on the reasons for an interoperable standard.

Phil

On Jul 28, 2014, at 17:00, Thomas Broyer <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Yes. This spec is of special interest to the platform we're building for http://www.oasis-eu.org/

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi all,

during the IETF #90 OAuth WG meeting, there was strong consensus in
adopting the "OAuth Token Introspection"
(draft-richer-oauth-introspection-06.txt) specification as an OAuth WG
work item.

We would now like to verify the outcome of this call for adoption on the
OAuth WG mailing list. Here is the link to the document:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection/

If you did not hum at the IETF 90 OAuth WG meeting, and have an opinion
as to the suitability of adopting this document as a WG work item,
please send mail to the OAuth WG list indicating your opinion (Yes/No).

The confirmation call for adoption will last until August 10, 2014.  If
you have issues/edits/comments on the document, please send these
comments along to the list in your response to this Call for Adoption.

Ciao
Hannes & Derek


_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth



--
Thomas Broyer
/tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/<http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth



_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth