Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Mon, 05 December 2011 18:48 UTC
Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.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 F271821F8C65 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:48:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i7BBdd9Z7pTW for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5131621F8C53 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ywm13 with SMTP id 13so5440429ywm.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:48:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; bh=tR55YWT1ye1SCaLZ/xBdl1hovrtW60YLVhhU0QESYiM=; b=C4Yni+Tu2hcF02difL7RM1q0hvJdfn2zmsiPVtzkroLnVJySylOE+raDDMq1i7nlhL QxLeRB/hn9FeXArCA+AA==
Received: by 10.236.197.72 with SMTP id s48mr13960658yhn.81.1323110888894; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:48:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.197.72 with SMTP id s48mr13960483yhn.81.1323110887691; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:48:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.209.22 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:47:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <069A2A4B-18C4-4440-BB13-1E259FC66958@ve7jtb.com>
References: <CALaySJJ+2au5rxEQmSSpXO42KmgCu=NhiLPBCx-3AH0hud=5CQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH-8B6sjim_tcBkTPFWc1SnjhtHDQTR7sVT+aOjnYv7cs8JssA@mail.gmail.com> <4ED82D62.3070800@cs.tcd.ie> <CALaySJLKYLpPWc14_GUJKc5j1E3QovKQOx9HsdR-n2YV7kstpQ@mail.gmail.com> <4ED89384.9060603@cs.tcd.ie> <CAC4RtVBQdV+dwhzK903nkeNhsKzrHNFPYMK+EZtxRXnHWGs68w@mail.gmail.com> <069A2A4B-18C4-4440-BB13-1E259FC66958@ve7jtb.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:47:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGdjJpJf8sFH-DwriLEwxjhF3yKe_Jex=fBFMbMm-qTsgWBnVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
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: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:48:10 -0000
+1, what John said. Marius On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:39 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote: > I remain unconvinced that at this point MTI is going to be useful. > > I appreciate that some people want MAC, I could not support it being MTI. > > The below text with Bearer as MTI the only would be acceptable, if we need a MTI token handler. > (I tend to think of token type, as bearer token type JWT/SAML etc, and this issue is more on the handling of classes of tokens) > > John Bradley > > On 2011-12-04, at 6:37 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> Stephen says: >>> On 12/02/2011 03:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> Maybe what would work best is some text that suggests what I say >>>> above: that toolkits intended for use in implementing OAuth services >>>> in general... implement [X and/or Y], and that code written for a >>>> specific environment implement what makes sense for that environment. >>>> It seems to me that to require any particular implementation in the >>>> latter case is arbitrary and counter-productive, and doesn't help >>>> anything interoperate. Whereas general-purpose toolkits that >>>> implement everything DO help interop. >>> >>> That'd work just fine for me. >> >> OK, so here's what I suggest... I propose adding a new section 7.2, thus: >> >> ----------------------------------- >> 7.2 Access Token Implementation Considerations >> >> Access token types have to be mutually understood among the >> authorization server, the resource server, and the client -- the >> access token issues the token, the resource server validates it, and >> the client is required to understand the type, as noted in section >> 7.1, above. Because of that, interoperability of program code >> developed separately depends upon the token types that are supported >> in the code. >> >> Toolkits that are intended for general use (for building other clients >> and/or servers), therefore, SHOULD implement as many token types as >> practical, to ensure that programs developed with those toolkits are >> able to use the token types they need. In particular, all general-use >> toolkits MUST implement bearer tokens [...ref...] and MAC tokens >> [...ref...]. >> >> Purpose-built code, built without such toolkits, has somewhat more >> flexibility, as its developers know the specific environment they're >> developing for. There's clearly little point to including code to >> support a particular token type when it's known in advance that the >> type in question will never be used in the intended deployment. >> Developers of purpose-built code are encouraged to consider future >> extensions and to plan ahead for changes in circumstances, and might >> still want to include support for multiple token types. That said, >> the choice of token-type support for such purpose-built code is left >> to the developers and their specific requirements. >> ----------------------------------- >> >> I think that expresses a reasonable compromise that might actually be >> followed and might actually do some good. Comments? Can we go with >> this and close this issue? (And, sorry, I've been a Bad Chair, and >> haven't put this in the tracker.) >> >> Barry >> _______________________________________________ >> 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] Mandatory-to-implement token type Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael D Adams
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael D Adams
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Michael D Adams
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Bart Wiegmans
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Blaine Cook
- [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement token … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement to… André DeMarre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement to… Richer, Justin P.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement to… André DeMarre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: Re: Mandatory-to-implement to… Dan Taflin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Paul Madsen
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Blaine Cook
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Leif Johansson
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Leif Johansson
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Blaine Cook
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Leif Johansson
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type Stephen Farrell