IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh tokens

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Wed, 15 June 2011 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
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 D610021F85A0 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7I9ctWS3+kqz for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C9F7921F859F for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26135 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2011 18:56:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 15 Jun 2011 18:56:50 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:56:44 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:56:25 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh tokens
Thread-Index: AcwriqZG+rtuEexTQKqoSJO19hK/0wAAyZ5g
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234475E986B4F@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234475E986AF9@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <BANLkTimVQL=4O3=L+et1XSx7-=h4Jnwd+g68siNqpMbSMn_wjA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimVQL=4O3=L+et1XSx7-=h4Jnwd+g68siNqpMbSMn_wjA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234475E986B4FP3PW5EX1MB01E_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh tokens
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:56:53 -0000

Yes, this is useful and on my list of changes to apply.

But I would like to start with a more basic, normative definition of what a refresh token is for. Right now, we have a very vague definition for it, and it is not clear how developers should use it alongside access tokens.

EHL

From: Brian Eaton [mailto:beaton@google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh tokens

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com<mailto:eran@hueniverse.com>> wrote:
I would like to add a quick discussion of access token and refresh token recommended deployment setup, providing clear guidelines when a refresh token SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be issued, and when issues, how it is difference from the access token.

Is this a start?

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg06362.html

It's time we stop trying to accommodate every possible combination and make some hard choices.

+1.  Yes please.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email