IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Assertion flow: please add optional refresh_token in response

Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com> Tue, 15 June 2010 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <beaton@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 B44D13A6925 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 1Ifmdao9IS6W for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8803A68DF for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.84]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o5FMZe3U005766 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:35:40 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1276641346; bh=q8CL9J7Uwpgtufr/YmcH36JGK54=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=pgejRuAWtSFO+pdUYnlGnpOH1ZOXwTYmFHvtv1HxBnY9Z/EqBy+aqqL1RbUs2R/KE HFcvajWOnUfHV5dkNTXYw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=sviySW7J8HQyICc28b9QgjlyYJtJdbX63LkfpxA1aBo6DFt38uZ5x5z0jXbvMReyR ThK3hHi5SaT32BdvlcSiA==
Received: from pvb32 (pvb32.prod.google.com [10.241.209.96]) by kpbe20.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o5FMZcQP032436 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:35:39 -0700
Received: by pvb32 with SMTP id 32so1195426pvb.12 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.1.39 with SMTP id 39mr5558802wfa.287.1276641338570; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.207.21 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55E1F9D6-71EC-40CE-8103-790E823B8D58@lodderstedt.net>
References: <AANLkTil1viRqVgwJzmq7N1W21TPeT5RuclBF5DmPvVVM@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EBB68C9@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTilRNaMzu9018HcZLb_j-vKbh4Mtl1LR_BYtnro-@mail.gmail.com> <A3F81FEE-7C52-4DD1-8261-C86FAFF3E1D5@gmail.com> <AANLkTilxAaLgOZwCDXnCvTII6Q82cCs7aajL2pxb7ij3@mail.gmail.com> <55E1F9D6-71EC-40CE-8103-790E823B8D58@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:35:38 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikAHzmtXLIL4UDd2bZbqbjgAqUYTMK5TazFnCUM@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Assertion flow: please add optional refresh_token in response
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, 15 Jun 2010 22:35:45 -0000

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt
<torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be an alternative solution, if the AS first tries to
> authenticate the user using SPNEGO within the Web Server flow? This should
> work in the inhouse scenario. If it fails, it can fall back to
> username/password auth..

This would let you skip password entry, but I think you'd still
require user confirmation to grant the access.

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