[OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0 token assertion to OAuth 2.0 token (was: Draft -09)

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Wed, 30 June 2010 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.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 6B3363A6A72 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.393
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.584, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 aPY3IuIr2Qlj for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A8833A69E3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o5U1DBLV012450 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:11 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1277860392; bh=Jj2aDc3TZu7l5t3Nc6394aVp6CM=; h=MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=qcciMwSGVCWDeJTEQ/je4uAiWhiqz8cQWgRwdveL00CoBNASfmzgRcOExV3ow7z+3 SI+P+DQpxV0NXdvSecxNw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=Z2QHeNgfIRdzJngTJ1z7UOn111nA924MzGv7OPPqN2wjcihp624fvzaqyKW4iZlIk AphI2MNAZjySSme/j9Ldg==
Received: from vws11 (vws11.prod.google.com [10.241.21.139]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o5U1DARA008057 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:11 -0700
Received: by vws11 with SMTP id 11so300711vws.10 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.75.200 with SMTP id z8mr3479257vcj.197.1277860390378; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.83.100 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:12:50 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikMuFIaJ1bnL3FOSzsRmO0Ix9xzyyzQG0hcWVcV@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0 token assertion to OAuth 2.0 token (was: Draft -09)
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, 30 Jun 2010 01:13:05 -0000

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
>
> The assertion grant type is really the grant type extension point. Libraries should treat it as a way to support custom grant types. One of the things I would like to see someone draft is how to use OAuth 1.0 tokens to obtain OAuth 2.0 tokens using the assertion type. For example, the assertion type can be "http://oauth.net/1.0/token" , and the assertion itself is some form of the token and signature (or secrets) concatenated into a string (this will maintain the 1.0 security while transitioning to 2.0). This is just a straw man.
>
> It is important that libraries support this extensibility with some form of a hook or handler so that clients can make requests using assertions from outside the library.

An OAuth 1 token assertion as described above would achieve the same
thing as the suggested bridge endpoint. Do you see any advantages on
using an assertion as opposed to a standard OAuth 1 signed request?

Marius