Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types

[Breno <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, I meant response_type 'none' and _not_ 'node'

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Breno <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Paul Tarjan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I like splitting on space like scopes. But I'm fine with registering all
>> possible compositions that make sense, if you prefer.
>>
>
> I agree with Marius that registering the combinations are not useful,
> however also agree with Paul that it's not a show stopper.
>
>
>>
>>
>> As I posted to the group about a month ago, we are planning on supporting
>>
>> response_type=none
>> response_type=code
>> response_type=token
>> response_type=signed_request token
>> response_type=token signed_request
>> (and maybe "code token"/"token code")
>>
>>
> Google is planning to support the following combinations:
>
> response_type=node
>
response_type=id_token
> response_type=code
> response_type=token
> response_type=code token (in either order, fragment-encoded response)
> response_type=code id_token (in either order, query-encoded response)
> response_type=token id_token (in either order, fragment-encoded response)
> response_type=code token id_token (in any possible order, fragment-encoded
> response)
>
>
>
>> We already have support for response_type=none and the signed_request one
>> is a few weeks out.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/11 1:35 PM, "Eran Hammer-Lahav" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> >I will withdraw my objections to the change (parsing the response_type
>> >string) if enough support is present. If you care about it, please speak
>> >out now.
>> >
>> >EHL
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> >> Of Mike Jones
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:32 PM
>> >> To: OAuth WG
>> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types
>> >>
>> >> As a data point motivating this functionality, the OpenID Connect Core
>> >>spec
>> >> currently includes:
>> >>
>> >>    response_type
>> >>       A space delimited, case sensitive list of string
>> >>       values (Pending OAuth 2.0 changes).  Acceptable values include
>> >>       "code", "token", and "none".  The value MUST include "code" for
>> >>       requesting an Authorization Code, "token" for requesting an
>> Access
>> >>       Token, and "none" if no response is needed.
>> >>
>> >> The OpenID Connect Session Management spec also defines an "id_token"
>> >> response_type.  Combinations of these (other than "none") are
>> meaningful
>> >> and used.
>> >>
>> >> The syntax for this can change, but this functionality is very
>> >>important to
>> >> OpenID Connect as it is currently written.
>> >>
>> >>                 Thanks,
>> >>                 -- Mike
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> >> Of Breno de Medeiros
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:48 AM
>> >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> >> Cc: OAuth WG
>> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:36, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[e-mail]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > That's pretty farfetched. In previous versions we had
>> 'code_and_token'
>> >> which was a composite value but without any special characters. If
>> >>people
>> >> think that we need to force such values to avoid this claimed developer
>> >> confusion, let's drop the + and be done.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Maybe far fetched, but it's already available in our production
>> >>environment --
>> >> we had implemented the code_and_token approach earlier (though not
>> >> documented it) but abandoned that route as we thought the exponential
>> >> explosion was harmful when we started contemplating adding new types
>> >> and allowing various combinations of them.
>> >>
>> >> > The only requirement I was asked to cover was to allow response type
>> >> extensibility. If there is WG consensus to also support the requirement
>> >>of
>> >> composite values using any order, we can discuss that.
>> >>
>> >> Let's.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > In addition, defining a parsing method adds a significant amount of
>> >>new
>> >> complexity beyond just splitting the string:
>> >> >
>> >> > * It allows for composite values that make no sense (since anything
>> >>goes,
>> >> composite values are not registered, just the components).
>> >> > * Additional error codes are needed to indicate bad format,
>> >>unsupported
>> >> values (specify which one), unsupported combinations, etc.
>> >> > * Developers lose the benefit of a simple registry with every
>> possible
>> >> combination they may choose.
>> >> >
>> >> > So the two questions are:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. Do you find the + proposal as defined in -18 to be useful or
>> >>confusing?
>> >>
>> >> It is ugly.
>> >>
>> >> > 2. Should the protocol support dynamic composite values with the
>> added
>> >> complexity (breaking change)?
>> >>
>> >> That's my preference.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > EHL
>> >> >
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:18 AM
>> >> >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> >> >> Cc: Marius Scurtescu; OAuth WG
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:10, Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> >> >> <[e-mail]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Requiring parsing of the response type parameter is a big change
>> at
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> point. Even if it is a decent idea, I'm against it for the sole
>> >> >> reason that I don't want to introduce such a change - we're done.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The + character makes reading values easier because it give
>> >> >> > composites of
>> >> >> existing, individually defined values, a special meaning to
>> *people*,
>> >> >> but it does not change any existing code or adds any work. Servers
>> >> >> will still perform simple string comparison. Parsing a list of
>> >>values is
>> >> unnecessary complexity.
>> >> >> Developers can learn to put values in their expected order (since
>> >> >> they are all going to cut-n-paste anyway).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I disagree. I believe that servers will either not support the
>> >> >> composite types at all, or will allow developers to enter it into
>> any
>> >> >> order to avoid developer pain.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also, developers will _not_ cut-and-paste. They will expect the fact
>> >> >> that order is not meaningful by interacting with providers that
>> don't
>> >> >> perform exact string matching and then have interoperability issues
>> >> >> with compliant implementations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I rather drop the special character then add parsing, but I think
>> >> >> > it is a useful
>> >> >> *convention*.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Do people want to keep it or drop it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > EHL
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> >> From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:59 AM
>> >> >> >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> >> >> >> Cc: Marius Scurtescu; OAuth WG
>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Imposing order and exact string matching on response_type's while
>> >> >> >> simultaneously supporting a special character '+' and introducing
>> >> >> >> the concept of composite response_type is a poor compromise,
>> >> IMNSHO.
>> >> >> What
>> >> >> >> is the rationale to fear allowing multiple-valued response_type
>> as
>> >> >> >> we have for other parameters in the spec?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:51, Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> >> >> >> <[e-mail]>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > As for the plus encoding we can choose another char or give an
>> >> >> example.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Jul 11, 2011, at 18:07, "Marius Scurtescu"
>> >> >> >> > <[e-mail]>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> If I read section 8.4 correctly it seems that new response
>> >> >> >> >> types can be defined but composite values must be registered
>> >> explicitly.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I don't think this approach scales too well. OpenID Connect
>> for
>> >> >> >> >> example is adding a new response type: id_token.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> id_token can be combined with either code or token and
>> >> >> >> >> potentially with both of them, the following combinations must
>> >> >> >> >> be registered as a
>> >> >> >> >> result:
>> >> >> >> >> code+id_token
>> >> >> >> >> token+id_token
>> >> >> >> >> code+token+id_token
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> and this assumes that code+token is already registered.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I think it makes more sense to define response_type as a space
>> >> >> >> >> separated list of items, where each item can be individually
>> >> >> >> >> registered. I do realize that this complicates things quite a
>> >> >> >> >> bit (not we have to define and deal with both composite
>> >> >> >> >> response_type and the individual items).
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> As a side note, using + as separator could cause lots of
>> >>problems.
>> >> >> >> >> If people naively type "code+toke" it will be decoded as "code
>> >> token".
>> >> >> >> >> No one will remember the hex code for +.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Marius
>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> >> OAuth mailing list
>> >> >> >> >> [e-mail]
>> >> >> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> --Breno
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> --Breno
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --Breno
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Breno de Medeiros
>
>


-- 
Breno de Medeiros