IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Wed, 14 July 2010 21:58 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 4205B3A6994 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 dqlZFMUAORXq for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay04.ispgateway.de (smtprelay04.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B063A69B0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p4ffd2d01.dip.t-dialin.net ([79.253.45.1] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by smtprelay04.ispgateway.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1OZ9ys-0006g7-Oq; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:59:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4C3E3326.6020401@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:59:02 +0200
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; de; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
References: <C862F736.37253%eran@hueniverse.com> <4C3E2DDA.3070905@lodderstedt.net> <AANLkTilfei9jODKIwz_CjS0tHyk9RJaKNYSe8LTe1UkZ@mail.gmail.com> <4C3E30C4.8090901@lodderstedt.net> <AANLkTiltjiBdsuynt0BjJ4LGL2_EHObR0VI2qj4eJilb@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiltjiBdsuynt0BjJ4LGL2_EHObR0VI2qj4eJilb@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Df-Sender: 141509
Cc: 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: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:58:58 -0000

Am 14.07.2010 23:52, schrieb Brian Eaton:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt
> <torsten@lodderstedt.net>  wrote:
>    
>> Yepp. That's an optimization of use case 2. That way the authz server does
>> not need to store the authorization transaction's results in a database and
>> there is no need to perform a a second request.
>>      
> The authorization server doesn't need to store the transaction results
> in a database regardless, the authorization code can be a signed
> message.
>    

That's an indeed option. But then the whole data is transported twice 
between authz server and client.

> The second request (as you pointed out in your original mail) is
> currently used to verify the client identity.  Do you have a
> suggestion for an alternate mechanism?
>    

A digital signature over the authz request? Alternatively, the authz 
server could encrypt the authz response.

regards,
Torsten.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status