Re: [OAUTH-WG] Token expiration

Hubert Le Van Gong <hubertlvg@gmail.com> Mon, 21 September 2009 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <hubertlvg@gmail.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 8F27F3A6B26 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 nbWH-yl14JpW for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f210.google.com (mail-bw0-f210.google.com [209.85.218.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19EB3A6B2A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz6 with SMTP id 6so2268943bwz.37 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LpHrvw7+0RtLRifOwO/mJfCaEp3kfHXoy6ajueaLOX4=; b=ZXb0ytDeVeGezy3b3Gpxz885f3gI7ui+kwyRKgpqy8o0OH+jaUd8OJufZ7rdbSBuK7 bP66r3ecuQTtMRew421Yb8qmEo77oc50e5pVlyN/SUmlfgwDbR2n7ZtsqQxfLC6Qg3Rh pm7hJrl/L2X8RahUwMFgby3H8juWJXjFYbZfc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=s4KkG3s2M+8G12T/lGHMYW4Gz2VEoLnpr2ZT8On0nw5tB5e+w5YLVlZL0o3RK8VLHX VffG9k6oKBWNhjF3Jjx8JmG9AhtcZesHiovBUdemsjiZNQSUesKVE9r/O330P4ZXwI5N qTnaaFSN1/GWHPnZ4MmfIUYKzcXG0/Zz4yo8g=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.34.83 with SMTP id k19mr158104bkd.96.1253572496943; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1bc4603e0909211522h2f659866v48ff9dcee9294b7a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343784D584A3@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <6c0fd2bc0909211441o3eacc564t2917cf5b94f99800@mail.gmail.com> <1bc4603e0909211522h2f659866v48ff9dcee9294b7a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:34:56 +0200
Message-ID: <6c0fd2bc0909211534s1f2b79c6m7577dee31accf9c7@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hubert Le Van Gong <hubertlvg@gmail.com>
To: Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Token expiration
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: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:34:02 -0000

An interesting example (to me at least since we use it) is the SAML token.
You have the ability to define three dates:
- IssueInstant: the time of issue of the token [required]
- NotBefore: time before which the token's invalid [optional]
- NotOnOrAfter: time after which the token becomes invalid [optional]

All are dateTime (in UTC form).

Thanks,
Hubert


On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems like it'd be worth documenting existing approaches to this... what do
> other similar APIs do?
> I know I harp on this approach to technology development, but that was how
> OAuth was developed (for better or worse): by looking at existing practices,
> extracting convention, and codifying ]ideally] best practices.
> If this is common and working elsewhere, can't we just imitate it?
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Hubert Le Van Gong <hubertlvg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> It is obviously useful to have. In fact it's so useful I'll bet most
>> token format
>> used do include one. Having it outside the token becomes redundant then
>> but
>> maybe it's not that bad.
>>
>> BTW why not using dateTime (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime)?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hubert
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Should the core spec support the ability to indicate the duration of
>> > token credentials? This would be an addition to the web delegation draft [1]
>> > in section 6 (Token Credentials) in the form of a new response parameter,
>> > something like:
>> >
>> > oauth_token_duration
>> >    The token duration specified in second from the time of the HTTP
>> > response timestamp.
>> >
>> > This has been consistently at the top of missing core funcationality.
>> >
>> >
>> > EHL
>> >
>> > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-web-delegation-01
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Messina
> Open Web Advocate
>
> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>
> Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
> Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
> OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net
>
> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>