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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Sun, 04 December 2011 05:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 02DBC21F9311 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 21:39:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 HhzA6XSTWvIa for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 21:39:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BB521F92E2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 21:39:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iaek3 with SMTP id k3so4559671iae.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:39:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.29.79 with SMTP id p15mr1162397ibc.16.1322977189486; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:39:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 210-170-097-163.jp.fiberbit.net (210-170-097-163.jp.fiberbit.net. [210.170.97.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a2sm31980868igj.7.2011.12.03.21.39.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:39:48 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBQdV+dwhzK903nkeNhsKzrHNFPYMK+EZtxRXnHWGs68w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:39:45 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: 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: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 05:39:52 -0000

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