Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-05.txt

Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> Tue, 22 July 2014 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sakimura@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A26E1A0039 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xitvFiNC-qQl for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DDB01A02A2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l4so6193301lbv.16 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=uLIMEuwuLcE31b2jY08MdFq3gGFnXYVW2mEwpZqBvWU=; b=zkFxWmAES6aPamSCxWjYYZK9VZ7f2f5TcVuDXv08nx8xzJkMMFaoBM8hixP/YUUouf lsfHJVl2IX19nt/FrbEsrhQLXK3gIGKSGUgel2jtiMsquJrBAbrmj4ob5AGN53B2IFtz wPQT2G4m4c7VNW3vbec4re8MWIjastatf9qXNf1oXNl/c9IiuIrqYH81Y/Q5lzhRDmkf bzsqBHW+5iNQbNiT2SiHPWJ5NkR+qPnf4VQn6mGw7RtsxzuIAJSFqM5oI94+2kWu2DyI kOfhde2Z33ru2arJdG8+4gYcI1OjS5rb5ZKW3MSS94/o+h/e0EDm7FdPQ17iud373vOd bDRg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.245.171 with SMTP id xp11mr17677575lac.61.1406043314499; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.150.233 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA1810B0-6ED0-456F-8989-6B7EF73930D9@mitre.org>
References: <20140721185955.29738.31476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439ADDA25E@TK5EX14MBXC294.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAEayHEO-_i+cB6mtb_OUaXF4OfyTrYwfv1mn2EYS-KEzTKY1GA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439ADDAA2D@TK5EX14MBXC294.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAEayHEO1W3axmpiKYGvGRn7vnS7NDNi41t4cAukMBKSB783yUw@mail.gmail.com> <CA1810B0-6ED0-456F-8989-6B7EF73930D9@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:35:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CABzCy2DZT3kuTPRjr8cmXKXKS2wmZiBC_ySckhFFPzY0_kfuDA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
To: "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11345e124cb77d04fec9f8d7"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/cNyYgbhoKGFDnG07tvHS8_ARieY
Cc: "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-05.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 22 Jul 2014 15:35:24 -0000

+1 to Justin.


2014-07-22 9:54 GMT-04:00 Richer, Justin P. <jricher@mitre.org>:

>  Errors like these make it clear to me that it would make much more sense
> to develop this document in the OpenID Foundation. It should be something
> that directly references OpenID Connect Core for all of these terms instead
> of redefining them. It's doing authentication, which is fundamentally what
> OpenID Connect does on top of OAuth, and I don't see a good argument for
> doing this work in this working group.
>
>   -- Justin
>
>  On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  Thanks for your review, Thomas.  The “prompt=consent” definition being
>> missing is an editorial error.  It should be:
>>
>>
>>
>> consent
>>
>> The Authorization Server SHOULD prompt the End-User for consent before
>> returning information to the Client. If it cannot obtain consent, it MUST
>> return an error, typically consent_required.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ll plan to add it in the next draft.
>>
>
>  It looks like the consent_required error needs to be defined too, and
> you might have forgotten to also import account_selection_required from
> OpenID Connect.
>
>
>>
>>
>> I agree that there’s no difference between a response with multiple “amr”
>> values that includes “mfa” and one that doesn’t.  Unless a clear use case
>> for why “mfa” is needed can be identified, we can delete it in the next
>> draft.
>>
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  How about "pwd" then? I fully understand that I should return "pwd" if
> the user authenticated using a password, but what "the service if a client
> secret is used" means in the definition for the "pwd" value?
>
>  (Nota: I know you're at IETF-90, I'm ready to wait 'til you come back
> ;-) )
>
>  --
> Thomas Broyer
> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en