[OAUTH-WG] defining new response types
Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Tue, 12 July 2011 01:07 UTC
Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.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 937A611E82FB for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WsNd0fpy0jP9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:07:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB6C11E8213 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p6C17Zs4005156 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:07:35 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1310432855; bh=xbFpqw+xYQ5MwSG4QiHtKZlTDE4=; h=MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type; b=NHoIzAXPknRdGTZE0eHeECfG4+dFUj71FhbOkpTJS4A2aAZUPj8RLx3PA+Ae3XtAu i5ej1Tyu4TKWFTuK9cpXQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc: content-type:x-system-of-record; b=jKkbySEqCy/Oe2YuTkjTzMvkktxpmWKgUmORZRpdtlwz2mbAtwU64OVeXVZ7PT99N uleu6IU07hHLLar8zUGBQ==
Received: from ywm21 (ywm21.prod.google.com [10.192.13.21]) by wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p6C17YIO031068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:07:34 -0700
Received: by ywm21 with SMTP id 21so2163375ywm.26 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Yr4myfGSEc8+6/RRapDg0OjzLH7AssPYgW1KxlEujU0=; b=gihgcw9fqVDaDvb0oh/XcOnYunjI1UcYmOfUinRk/sOgpR6qjEFq2xVd+l+1fCLkEe M0FQcr/z787ldKTwfuYg==
Received: by 10.100.166.8 with SMTP id o8mr4568331ane.13.1310432854109; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.14.19 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:07:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGdjJpKq=90QhSt68sYbtW9TtW+OR5nxYxTSC1A1jYRA=369tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types
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: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:07:36 -0000
If I read section 8.4 correctly it seems that new response types can be defined but composite values must be registered explicitly. I don't think this approach scales too well. OpenID Connect for example is adding a new response type: id_token. id_token can be combined with either code or token and potentially with both of them, the following combinations must be registered as a result: code+id_token token+id_token code+token+id_token and this assumes that code+token is already registered. I think it makes more sense to define response_type as a space separated list of items, where each item can be individually registered. I do realize that this complicates things quite a bit (not we have to define and deal with both composite response_type and the individual items). As a side note, using + as separator could cause lots of problems. If people naively type "code+toke" it will be decoded as "code token". No one will remember the hex code for +. Marius
- [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Breno de Medeiros
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Breno de Medeiros
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Breno de Medeiros
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Paul Tarjan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Breno
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Breno
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types Breno