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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

FWIW, if Barry's suggested text was amended to say "MUST do bearer,
MAY do mac" I'd still be ok with that.

Much as I'd like if the mac scheme were more popular, my comment
on -22 was interop and not really security related.

S

On 12/04/2011 01:15 PM, Paul Madsen wrote:
> Commercial OAuth authorization servers are neither 'toolkits' nor
> 'purpose built code' - not used to build OAuth clients/servers but yet
> required to support more variety in deployments than a single purpose
> built server.
>
> But, that variety is driven by customer demand, and none of ours (yet?)
> have demanded MAC. If and when that demand comes, we will add support.
>
> To stipulate MAC as MTI would in no way reflect what the market wants.
> And 'interop' nobody wants is not meaningful interop.
>
> paul
>
> On 12/3/11 4:37 PM, 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