Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> Sun, 11 December 2011 11:26 UTC
Return-Path: <leifj@mnt.se>
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 AA70C21F8A6C for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:26:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.294
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F8Wd0UNppHVD for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:26:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE0621F8A66 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:26:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by laah2 with SMTP id h2so963412laa.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:26:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.109.105 with SMTP id hr9mr6006445lab.24.1323602799239; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:26:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.10.8] (2.67.73.229.mobile.tre.se. [2.67.73.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ne3sm13253484lab.7.2011.12.11.03.26.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:26:37 -0800 (PST)
References: <CALaySJJ+2au5rxEQmSSpXO42KmgCu=NhiLPBCx-3AH0hud=5CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-8B6sjim_tcBkTPFWc1SnjhtHDQTR7sVT+aOjnYv7cs8JssA@mail.gmail.com> <4ED82D62.3070800@cs.tcd.ie> <CALaySJLKYLpPWc14_GUJKc5j1E3QovKQOx9HsdR-n2YV7kstpQ@mail.gmail.com> <4ED89384.9060603@cs.tcd.ie> <CAC4RtVBQdV+dwhzK903nkeNhsKzrHNFPYMK+EZtxRXnHWGs68w@mail.gmail.com> <4EDB726E.2060900@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EDB726E.2060900@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8L1)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-6--449156745"
Message-Id: <6A17C741-8F1F-44A6-8E20-52A58272C2BE@mnt.se>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8L1)
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:28:24 +0100
To: Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:26:45 -0000
As an implementor of a toolkit let me offer this: the only use/requirement of mac that I've seen is for backwards compat with 1.0a. 4 dec 2011 kl. 14:15 skrev Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com>: > Commercial OAuth authorization servers are neither 'toolkits' nor 'purpose built code' - not used to build OAuth clients/servers but yet required to support more variety in deployments than a single purpose built server. > > But, that variety is driven by customer demand, and none of ours (yet?) have demanded MAC. If and when that demand comes, we will add support. > > To stipulate MAC as MTI would in no way reflect what the market wants. And 'interop' nobody wants is not meaningful interop. > > paul > > On 12/3/11 4:37 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> >> Stephen says: >>> On 12/02/2011 03:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> Maybe what would work best is some text that suggests what I say >>>> above: that toolkits intended for use in implementing OAuth services >>>> in general... implement [X and/or Y], and that code written for a >>>> specific environment implement what makes sense for that environment. >>>> It seems to me that to require any particular implementation in the >>>> latter case is arbitrary and counter-productive, and doesn't help >>>> anything interoperate. Whereas general-purpose toolkits that >>>> implement everything DO help interop. >>> That'd work just fine for me. >> OK, so here's what I suggest... I propose adding a new section 7.2, thus: >> >> ----------------------------------- >> 7.2 Access Token Implementation Considerations >> >> Access token types have to be mutually understood among the >> authorization server, the resource server, and the client -- the >> access token issues the token, the resource server validates it, and >> the client is required to understand the type, as noted in section >> 7.1, above. Because of that, interoperability of program code >> developed separately depends upon the token types that are supported >> in the code. >> >> Toolkits that are intended for general use (for building other clients >> and/or servers), therefore, SHOULD implement as many token types as >> practical, to ensure that programs developed with those toolkits are >> able to use the token types they need. In particular, all general-use >> toolkits MUST implement bearer tokens [...ref...] and MAC tokens >> [...ref...]. >> >> Purpose-built code, built without such toolkits, has somewhat more >> flexibility, as its developers know the specific environment they're >> developing for. There's clearly little point to including code to >> support a particular token type when it's known in advance that the >> type in question will never be used in the intended deployment. >> Developers of purpose-built code are encouraged to consider future >> extensions and to plan ahead for changes in circumstances, and might >> still want to include support for multiple token types. That said, >> the choice of token-type support for such purpose-built code is left >> to the developers and their specific requirements. >> ----------------------------------- >> >> I think that expresses a reasonable compromise that might actually be >> followed and might actually do some good. Comments? Can we go with >> this and close this issue? (And, sorry, I've been a Bad Chair, and >> haven't put this in the tracker.) >> >> Barry >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael D Adams
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael D Adams
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael D Adams
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Bart Wiegmans
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Blaine Cook
- [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement token … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement to… André DeMarre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement to… Richer, Justin P.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement to… André DeMarre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement to… Dan Taflin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Paul Madsen
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Blaine Cook
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Leif Johansson
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Leif Johansson
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Blaine Cook
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Leif Johansson
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell