Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0 token assertion to OAuth 2.0 token (was: Draft -09)

Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com> Wed, 30 June 2010 01:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lshepard@facebook.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 320443A69FD for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.266, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 6ioPpLSAZCuz for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-out.facebook.com (outmail025.snc1.tfbnw.net [69.63.178.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536423A680C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.18.255.124] ([10.18.255.124:52206] helo=mail.thefacebook.com) by mta011.snc1.facebook.com (envelope-from <lshepard@facebook.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.45 r(34067)) with ESMTP id 8E/F0-30982-E1E9A2C4; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:30:06 -0700
Received: from sc-hub05.TheFacebook.com (192.168.18.82) by sc-hub04.TheFacebook.com (192.168.18.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.694.1; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:30:05 -0700
Received: from SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.100]) by sc-hub05.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.82]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:30:05 -0700
From: Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com>
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:30:04 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0 token assertion to OAuth 2.0 token (was: Draft -09)
Thread-Index: AcsX88RqNqJmOh2SRl2mA86LIa7NKw==
Message-ID: <1B9AF9A1-697C-4C21-A8A2-0D94B90EB599@facebook.com>
References: <AANLkTikMuFIaJ1bnL3FOSzsRmO0Ix9xzyyzQG0hcWVcV@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikMuFIaJ1bnL3FOSzsRmO0Ix9xzyyzQG0hcWVcV@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 1.0 token assertion to OAuth 2.0 token (was: Draft -09)
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: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:29:59 -0000

One reason is that you may want to exchange tokens in a batch, whereas you typically can only sign requests individually.

On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The assertion grant type is really the grant type extension point. Libraries should treat it as a way to support custom grant types. One of the things I would like to see someone draft is how to use OAuth 1.0 tokens to obtain OAuth 2.0 tokens using the assertion type. For example, the assertion type can be "http://oauth.net/1.0/token" , and the assertion itself is some form of the token and signature (or secrets) concatenated into a string (this will maintain the 1.0 security while transitioning to 2.0). This is just a straw man.
>> 
>> It is important that libraries support this extensibility with some form of a hook or handler so that clients can make requests using assertions from outside the library.
> 
> An OAuth 1 token assertion as described above would achieve the same
> thing as the suggested bridge endpoint. Do you see any advantages on
> using an assertion as opposed to a standard OAuth 1 signed request?
> 
> Marius
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth