Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter
Todd W Lainhart <lainhart@us.ibm.com> Thu, 18 November 2010 16:16 UTC
Return-Path: <lainhart@us.ibm.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 B3DCF3A6884; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:16:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 teGLlmeA-w5M; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:16:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289D13A6879; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:16:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oAIG0WCb001100; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:00:32 -0500
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id oAIGHOsm124514; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:17:24 -0500
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id oAIGHOdp009444; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:17:24 -0200
Received: from d01ml255.pok.ibm.com (d01ml255.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.128]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id oAIGHNSD009429; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:17:23 -0200
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4AE3A525@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D470CC778@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4AE3A525@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Cc: oauth-bounces@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: AFED3135:A5230486-852577DF:005974A1; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2 HF88 September 24, 2008
From: Todd W Lainhart <lainhart@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OFAFED3135.A5230486-ON852577DF.005974A1-852577DF.00597B7C@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:17:22 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML255/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.1FP2|March 17, 2010) at 11/18/2010 11:17:22, Serialize complete at 11/18/2010 11:17:22
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00597B25852577DF_="
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter
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: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:16:42 -0000
#3 Todd Lainhart Rational software IBM Corporation 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-1250 1-978-899-4705 2-276-4705 (T/L) lainhart@us.ibm.com From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org> Date: 11/18/2010 02:50 AM Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter Sent by: oauth-bounces@ietf.org Nothing? No one cares? EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Eran Hammer-Lahav > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:33 PM > To: OAuth WG > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter > > The new draft will include a new token_type response parameter. In my > original proposal I suggested making this an optional response parameter > with a default value of 'bearer' or 'plain' to keep existing -10 implementation > compliant with -11. > > Options are: > > 1. Missing type response parameter means bearer token 2. Missing type > response parameter means whatever the service default token type is 3. > Servers must include an explicit token type with each response, where each > token spec (bearer, signed, etc.) register their own type name 4. No token > type. Type is determined by other attributes (such as secret and hash > algorithm name). > > #1 and #3 are the most consistent with current design and best for interop. > #1 requires no changes to -10 code, but leads to ugly spec organization (it > links the bearer token spec with the framework spec). > > I'm strongly in favor of #3 as existing clients will ignore this and just assume > bearer. Any server introducing a new token type will need to change clients > anyway. Servers will need to be changed to add the new parameter but > that's a trivial change (and -11 includes some normative changes already - all > minor). > > So +1 on #3 for me. > > Please register your preference. > > EHL > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter prateek mishra
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter Todd W Lainhart
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] VOTE: Token type response parameter Lukas Rosenstock