Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types

As for the plus encoding we can choose another char or give an example. 

On Jul 11, 2011, at 18:07, "Marius Scurtescu" <mscurtescu@google.com> 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
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth