Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types

Requiring parsing of the response type parameter is a big change at this point. Even if it is a decent idea, I'm against it for the sole reason that I don't want to introduce such a change - we're done.

The + character makes reading values easier because it give composites of existing, individually defined values, a special meaning to *people*, but it does not change any existing code or adds any work. Servers will still perform simple string comparison. Parsing a list of values is unnecessary complexity. Developers can learn to put values in their expected order (since they are all going to cut-n-paste anyway).

I rather drop the special character then add parsing, but I think it is a useful *convention*.

Do people want to keep it or drop it?

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:breno@google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:59 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: Marius Scurtescu; OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types
> 
> Imposing order and exact string matching on response_type's while
> simultaneously supporting a special character '+' and introducing the concept
> of composite response_type is a poor compromise, IMNSHO. What is the
> rationale to fear allowing multiple-valued response_type as we have for
> other parameters in the spec?
> 
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:51, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
> wrote:
> > As for the plus encoding we can choose another char or give an example.
> >
> > On Jul 11, 2011, at 18:07, "Marius Scurtescu" <mscurtescu@google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 mailing list
> >> OAuth@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> --Breno