Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

Exactly



11 dec 2011 kl. 18:27 skrev William Mills <[e-mail]>:

> They are only compatible in the sense that they share the same security characteristics.
> 
> From: Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>
> To: Paul Madsen <[e-mail]> 
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 3:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
> 
> 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 <[e-mail]>:
> 
>> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
>