Re: [OAUTH-WG] Quick survey: fragment vs. query

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Tue, 10 August 2010 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
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 CDF413A69B4 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.818
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.818 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 hpQSOFzgG8Wx for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay03.ispgateway.de (smtprelay03.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49CD3A698C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [80.187.108.230] (helo=[10.164.59.182]) by smtprelay03.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1Oinp3-00007q-Id; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:20:53 +0200
References: <C862F736.37253%eran@hueniverse.com> <AANLkTil_MQ1-JxNC-5S3bLDo6-WhG0GMBHVXQvvN-jdv@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=A+ztAH8vbR-O8vYUxiE2cGjn-KHCpM05NE3fL@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=A+ztAH8vbR-O8vYUxiE2cGjn-KHCpM05NE3fL@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8A293)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1-340419414"
Message-Id: <8F6F3A55-274C-4F38-84C8-C956D74504AE@lodderstedt.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8A293)
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:20:03 +0200
To: David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
X-Df-Sender: 141509
Cc: Naitik Shah <naitik@facebook.com>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Quick survey: fragment vs. query
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: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:20:25 -0000

Can someone pls. explain why code and token should both be returned in the fragment?

regards,
Torsten.

Am 09.08.2010 um 20:32 schrieb David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>:

> The thread wondered a bit but Brian's summary here seems to be what most people were advocating for. Is there enough consensus to have Draft 11 reflect it?
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com> wrote:
> I can't parse this diagam, but here's my take:
> 
> - web server flow should always return just a code.
>   parameter always goes in the query string
>   it would be sort of reasonable to have the code exchange return
> just an access token, instead of a refresh token and an access token.
> Or a refresh token with a shorter lifetime than indefinite.
> 
> - user-agent flow can reasonably return either just a token, or a
> token and a code
>   both parameters always go in the fragment, to avoid busting the browser cache
>   same comments about lifetime of refresh tokens...
> 
> Cheers,
> Brian
> 
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> > Please answer this based on actual use cases. When returning parameters
> > using the redirection URI call, which of these combinations make sense?
> >
> >         | Code | Token | Code & Token
> > ---------+------+-------+--------------
> > Fragment |  a   |   1   |   3
> > Query    |  2   |   b   |   c
> > Split*   | n/a  |  n/a  |   d
> >
> > * token in fragment, code in query
> >
> > Known use cases:
> >
> > 1 - current user-agent flow
> > 2 - current web-server flow
> > 3 - as described by Brian and Naitik
> >
> > Do you need any of these?
> >
> > a -
> > b -
> > c -
> > d - current -10 code-and-token proposal
> >
> > EHL
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth