Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-revocation

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Tue, 05 February 2013 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
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 BE3CF21F869F; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:41:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 tzey5-sNSIHG; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:41:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtprelay02.ispgateway.de (smtprelay02.ispgateway.de [80.67.18.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9308721F8697; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:41:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [91.2.92.91] (helo=[192.168.71.56]) by smtprelay02.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1U2oOL-0002F9-Uy; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:41:18 +0100
References: <510E5FB5.10803@lodderstedt.net> <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E06886427@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG> <511020D3.1090201@aol.com> <B33BFB58CCC8BE4998958016839DE27E068865E3@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG> <OF2060C435.DEAE300A-ON85257B09.005BEF8B-85257B09.005C2559@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <OF2060C435.DEAE300A-ON85257B09.005BEF8B-85257B09.005C2559@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-8B1A01EF-1411-4096-A29C-71F4FD1A91EA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <2DC4D4CA-C65F-4B7D-96E3-A811B303B15A@lodderstedt.net>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10B141)
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 20:41:18 +0100
To: Todd W Lainhart <lainhart@us.ibm.com>
X-Df-Sender: dG9yc3RlbkBsb2RkZXJzdGVkdC1vbmxpbmUuZGU=
Cc: "oauth-bounces@ietf.org" <oauth-bounces@ietf.org>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-revocation
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: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:41:23 -0000

Why not adopting Bill's suggestion and just return HTTP status code 200 for (already) invalid tokens?

regards,
Torsten.

Am 05.02.2013 um 17:46 schrieb Todd W Lainhart <lainhart@us.ibm.com>:

> > Could it do something with invalid_parameter that it couldn't do with invalid_token_parameter (among others), or vice versa? 
> 
> I'm not imagining a client doing anything programmatically useful with the distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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:        "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org> 
> To:        George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com>, 
> Cc:        OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org> 
> Date:        02/04/2013 04:10 PM 
> Subject:        Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-revocation 
> Sent by:        oauth-bounces@ietf.org 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:57 PM, George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 2/4/13 3:41 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
> >> On Feb 3, 2013, at 8:01 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> - invalid_token error code: I propose to use the new error code "invalid_parameter" (as suggested by Peter and George). I don't see the need to register it (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg10604.html) but would like to get your advice.
> >> something more like "invalid_token_parameter" would maybe make sense, since it's not just *any* parameter, it's the special "token" parameter that we're talking about, but it's distinct from the invalid_token response. The introspection endpoint uses the same pattern of a token= parameter, but since the whole point of the introspection endpoint is determining token validity it doesn't actually throw an error here.
> >> 
> >> I agree that it doesn't need to be registered (since it's on a different endpoint).
> > For what it's worth my thinking was that if we have an 'invalid_parameter' error, then the description can define which parameter is invalid. I don't think we should create a bunch of specific error values that are endpoint specific and could overlap which is where the whole error return value started.
> > 
> 
> Hm, I see what you're saying, but the error response is already endpoint specific. Though there is value in not having conflicting and/or confusing responses from different endpoints that use the same error code for different things. 
> 
> What it really comes down to is: what can the client do with this error? Could it do something with invalid_parameter that it couldn't do with invalid_token_parameter (among others), or vice versa? As I'm writing this out, I'm not convinced that it could, really, so this may be a bike shedding argument.
> 
> -- Justin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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