Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-05.txt

[Justin Richer <[e-mail]>]

So the draft would literally turn into:

"The a4c response type and grant type return an id_token from the token endpoint with no access token. All parameters and values are defined in OIDC."

Seems like the perfect mini extension draft for OIDF to do.

--Justin

/sent from my phone/

On Jul 22, 2014 10:29 AM, Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> What about just defining a new grant type in this WG?
>
>
> 2014-07-22 12:56 GMT-04:00 Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>:
>>
>> That would be nice. However oidc still needs the new grant type in order to implement the same flow. 
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:35, Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to Justin. 
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-07-22 9:54 GMT-04:00 Richer, Justin P. <[e-mail]>:
>>>>
>>>> Errors like these make it clear to me that it would make much more sense to develop this document in the OpenID Foundation. It should be something that directly references OpenID Connect Core for all of these terms instead of redefining them. It's doing authentication, which is fundamentally what OpenID Connect does on top of OAuth, and I don't see a good argument for doing this work in this working group.
>>>>
>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Thomas Broyer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Mike Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your review, Thomas.  The “prompt=consent” definition being missing is an editorial error.  It should be:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> consent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Authorization Server SHOULD prompt the End-User for consent before returning information to the Client. If it cannot obtain consent, it MUST return an error, typically consent_required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ll plan to add it in the next draft.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like the consent_required error needs to be defined too, and you might have forgotten to also import account_selection_required from OpenID Connect.
>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that there’s no difference between a response with multiple “amr” values that includes “mfa” and one that doesn’t.  Unless a clear use case for why “mfa” is needed can be identified, we can delete it in the next draft.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about "pwd" then? I fully understand that I should return "pwd" if the user authenticated using a password, but what "the service if a client secret is used" means in the definition for the "pwd" value?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Nota: I know you're at IETF-90, I'm ready to wait 'til you come back ;-) )
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Thomas Broyer
>>>>> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>>> @_nat_en
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en