Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when requesting an access token
David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com> Fri, 03 September 2010 00:20 UTC
Return-Path: <recordond@gmail.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 70B993A6767 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.465
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 BnE05Et+VcDI for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 17:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662203A635F for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 17:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so1280253bwz.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wCbtUMUDpEKDn9jYd5OeVVOD9a/bjlZ3VR6FqNPr6h4=; b=Bc+cg1cGELDulZber+M1nGwv/1MXv+TH5pl5z0XEDlrW10H7l28sBz56YaeO0RrnzH y9l7Xcymz7RlcpXoOg5/lV0O3bLGPw0exEjtmzZbWhHFGXYPrU0iG8zoIP5vqWGU3BuA F9QJ3waQXSVVqKLNnB9xqZBtxh4fjvkSuhK3E=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Ak/bkZxyZyoedkbuNJS1lpXKIkyQVycJ0L9b0WtNIJVABgbOvwb6mjzaKMHO6D9Cpf TIKNdUiQVx3JSGC4iLWDwrBi+IQ7tYe5JwtHfiN4/S/PqUuYHPDp92dOKzo6uviuIV2U duK2zfNUhzYfoTzQtQkPBfrlChFnaCFnWHoBI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.27.20 with SMTP id g20mr6754883bkc.114.1283473276882; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.7.139 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 17:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3F35BE2D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3F35BE13@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <1283462840.3809.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3F35BE2D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:21:16 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikqfLBP7N2Ton8KjhxOi9JBMJPhLPwYqW6nphBy@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000325559ee6bf50db048f4fe8ff"
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when requesting an access token
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: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:20:50 -0000
I like that this also collapses the grant_type=assertion and assertion_type=foo. On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>wrote: > Yes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher@mitre.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:27 PM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when requesting an > access token > > +1 > > I've never liked the notion of not being able to extend the "grant type" > field, and this change addresses that particular gripe. > > Just so I'm clear here: an extension that defines its own url-defined grant > type can also legally add and remove parameters from the endpoint, right? > > -- Justin > > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 17:11 -0400, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > > I would like to make this change in -11: > > > > > > > > Instead of the current user of the ‘assertion’ grant type – > > > > > > > > POST /token HTTP/1.1 > > > > Host: server.example.com > > > > Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded > > > > > > > > grant_type=assertion& > > > > assertion_type=urn%3Aoasis%3Anames%3Atc%3ASAML%3A2.0%3Aassertion& > > > > assertion=PHNhbWxwOl[...omitted for brevity...]ZT4%3D > > > > > > > > Drop the ‘assertion’ grant type and put the assertion type directly in > > the grant_type parameter: > > > > > > > > POST /token HTTP/1.1 > > > > Host: server.example.com > > > > Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded > > > > > > > > grant_type=urn%3Aoasis%3Anames%3Atc%3ASAML%3A2.0%3Aassertion& > > > > assertion=PHNhbWxwOl[...omitted for brevity...]ZT4%3D > > > > > > > > In other words, the grant_type parameter value will be defined as: > > > > > > > > - authorization_code > > > > - password > > > > - client_credentials > > > > - refresh_token > > > > - an abolute URI (extensions) > > > > > > > > I considered turning all the values into URIs but found it to be > > counter-intuitive. The practice of using “official” short names and > > extension URIs is well established and is already the general > > architecture used here. This just makes it cleaner. > > > > > > > > I ran this idea by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore who are > > generally supportive of the idea. > > > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > > > EHL > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when req… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… David Waite
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when… Brian Campbell