IETF Logo Mail Archive

[OAUTH-WG] expires_at vs expires_in

Paul Walker <pjwalker@gmail.com> Tue, 14 December 2010 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <pjwalker@gmail.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 9D00928C11B for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:12:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 VexN5hWsKSbO for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC5A28C115 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pvc21 with SMTP id 21so237410pvc.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:14:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version :x-mailer; bh=NnXVriL6xSHgMlWOvc1moJmDcSlCPuyz6yB0vxy1KHc=; b=kiCCT7ECfY3f21yp9VUV0GShy4dnBs1O8LLYRWkEO6dGcj0eCONNfltOFw2mLUeeMg T8GWKF1qHPitUElWbS9khdLiRYFzF3qaTwed+g/P4iVEnfjhN0aw8xPRJTXnru5lvuuY 4X/wIPmQ+9Q7amHIZgxSr8gtoppJ5fNluqz+M=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=NFINbxyddvuWPVQdezI1+htCg4Kuq+oLLtRZOvjVX4Up1wC1f6gkkgueOgDOysP5// LsdoypNBFZW53fBV8KEHEexmAx/X0lS32WOPzRweGyMluN1JoBj+krLr8rgOWFQtXdoR m3MvBvgytoVW8c8dgljutc6BfngabgYlDaTEY=
Received: by 10.142.128.12 with SMTP id a12mr4913272wfd.60.1292361244558; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from paul-lan.mellmo.lan (rrcs-76-79-212-2.west.biz.rr.com [76.79.212.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w14sm580997wfd.18.2010.12.14.13.14.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:14:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Walker <pjwalker@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:14:01 -0800
Message-Id: <C88645D5-716A-4899-9BF8-E9B035E47CA5@gmail.com>
To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:16:12 -0800
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] expires_at vs expires_in
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, 14 Dec 2010 21:13:14 -0000

Has there been discussion of using expires_at as an exact epoch time in seconds as opposed to expires_in which is, at best, an approximation "from the time the response was generated by the authorization server?"  I apologize if this has been discussed previously.

~pj

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