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

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> Mon, 12 December 2011 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <leifj@mnt.se>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB0921F8888 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:30:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.295, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NWwTgOKyq4xf for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A3421F8880 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by laah2 with SMTP id h2so1479064laa.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.133.210 with SMTP id pe18mr345790lab.19.1323714609543; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.232] (ua-83-227-179-169.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se. [83.227.179.169]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nw10sm17419856lab.4.2011.12.12.10.30.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:30:07 -0800 (PST)
References: <CALaySJJ+2au5rxEQmSSpXO42KmgCu=NhiLPBCx-3AH0hud=5CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-8B6sjim_tcBkTPFWc1SnjhtHDQTR7sVT+aOjnYv7cs8JssA@mail.gmail.com> <4ED82D62.3070800@cs.tcd.ie> <CALaySJLKYLpPWc14_GUJKc5j1E3QovKQOx9HsdR-n2YV7kstpQ@mail.gmail.com> <4ED89384.9060603@cs.tcd.ie> <CAC4RtVBQdV+dwhzK903nkeNhsKzrHNFPYMK+EZtxRXnHWGs68w@mail.gmail.com> <4EDB726E.2060900@gmail.com> <6A17C741-8F1F-44A6-8E20-52A58272C2BE@mnt.se> <1323624449.41873.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1323624449.41873.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8L1)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-9--337343302"
Message-Id: <F23BC2B3-9E96-42D0-A4C6-3710BAE68786@mnt.se>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8L1)
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:32:00 +0100
To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:30:13 -0000

Exactly



11 dec 2011 kl. 18:27 skrev William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>:

> They are only compatible in the sense that they share the same security characteristics.
> 
> From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
> To: Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com> 
> Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org> 
> 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 <paul.madsen@gmail.com>:
> 
>> 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
>>> 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
> 
>