IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Partially standardized format for access tokens?

Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com> Tue, 08 June 2010 15:32 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 11DDE3A6805 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 0O9XW7fDXVdQ for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402453A697D for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.7]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o58FW7Q3012059 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:32:07 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1276011127; bh=dnmfiWtqQMdtQDM8Mg6y4uB8ZQQ=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=bhOZsVWaAj7k1bAEkkLu6D7uXsjvuNGB+xqfuNmgN2eMCLPKAckktZ/6ThVeoF7wI wQTpwN0SiAzZ81cJ7hqMw==
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; b=hX4oQ2k0L0wra/gC5S7MIMwGb3rc8A2CJ6xsZzB/IwB09uCgWyIV/KFB2Ef6rjbYV jnpeP2auXMwBN9fUs8isw==
Received: from pwj4 (pwj4.prod.google.com [10.241.219.68]) by hpaq7.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o58FW5tg013311 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:32:06 -0700
Received: by pwj4 with SMTP id 4so2034146pwj.34 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.87.2 with SMTP id p2mr12127682wfl.323.1276011125075; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.207.21 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C0E50E7.5040909@aol.com>
References: <AANLkTinQTV9JJPiftquRbvdqAOHxUXk7QQKCMrmQ4LLK@mail.gmail.com> <B549E6C4-A24D-4032-8A26-89ED58EBAA34@facebook.com> <4C090B6C.9030707@aol.com> <B6D1E6FF-D65F-4FD6-B148-C17550421FC9@facebook.com> <AANLkTilj0xG6SjHrzkd9Ca-N67J7IlsTNAOkyFdjQ62I@mail.gmail.com> <ED86A2AA-56D5-4DC6-B896-48A850EED3B2@facebook.com> <4C0930B2.80802@aol.com> <AANLkTimupEDpBUjg4iwwhPQ41ZKcryMcpVjJumXNIjP0@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11263E5DA7C@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <383A9188-1AA6-49FE-95FC-5D6316BD18CD@jkemp.net> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11263EBF638@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <50227268-61DB-401E-A2AA-F8A984C1B6B3@jkemp.net> <6E69B6CE-FACA-4428-B6BA-48CF5B1E15C9@facebook.com> <4C0E50E7.5040909@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 08:32:04 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinnHC3qAl6DEs2Myk-Kp9823T0HsS97n4FLCohr@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
To: George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Partially standardized format for access tokens?
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: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:32:09 -0000

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:17 AM, George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com> >
2. Use OpenID and force Person B to "sign in" to photos.example.com
> (effectively establishing a relationship with photos.example.com that they
> might not want)
>
> 3. Have photos.example.com be able to accept a token from person B's
> authorization service saying this is person B when accessing the protected
> resource.

These two options seem equivalent to me.

They certainly bring up the same user experience challenges.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email