Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type

[Marius Scurtescu <[e-mail]>]

+1, what John said.

Marius



On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:39 PM, John Bradley <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>