Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: specificity of the assertion flow
Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com> Sat, 17 April 2010 00:03 UTC
Return-Path: <beaton@google.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02293A6835 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5M-jBdJyPz-C for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A741A3A6803 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.82]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3H03em5008030 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:40 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1271462620; bh=SvyuWHxiYAPr6Ee3k434rTUszgM=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ObkbH/6wUHbgGG4+n7nbcjCHxEs/YKmOmwHIqX/93oPvSFyr6l1oOIt9Aqa8mnVIE f2lDd8IvGwNiLZfRmTdjQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=TBpyS/kccrbJVcM+Sv3qKvddc2J9hvdLFbzPmN8ODhYngDB8O6JiOPiuLrsprY/U7 olX7DZPHr01kdHwu8EEyA==
Received: from vws19 (vws19.prod.google.com [10.241.21.147]) by kpbe18.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3H03cM0002873 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:39 -0700
Received: by vws19 with SMTP id 19so1240954vws.32 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.109.99 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C7ECB94C.3A0E%cmortimore@salesforce.com>
References: <C7ECB053.32354%eran@hueniverse.com> <C7ECB94C.3A0E%cmortimore@salesforce.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:38 -0700
Received: by 10.220.48.22 with SMTP id p22mr1450905vcf.213.1271462618651; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <k2idaf5b9571004161703sb3f3af1cq369f8624355de129@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
To: Chuck Mortimore <cmortimore@salesforce.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: specificity of the assertion flow
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:03:51 -0000
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Chuck Mortimore <cmortimore@salesforce.com> wrote: > Could you please take another glance at what I posted? There are a number > of changes to the general assertion flow that are required for it to reflect > how this will be used in a lot of scenarios. > (A) The client sends an access token request to the authorization server and includes a self-issued assertion. Why self issued? > The value of the assertion parameter MUST be a valid SAML <Response> message Why saml Response instead of saml Assertion? Scope would be useful in this profile. Adding form-encoded content-type header to the examples would be useful. Cheers, Brian
- [OAUTH-WG] Issue: specificity of the assertion fl… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: specificity of the assertio… Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: specificity of the assertio… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: specificity of the assertio… Chuck Mortimore
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: specificity of the assertio… =JeffH
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: specificity of the assertio… Brian Eaton
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: specificity of the assertio… Chuck Mortimore