Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> Tue, 17 January 2012 06:36 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron@parecki.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 CA08421F85C4 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hTMrMPI130SJ for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9439421F85C0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wics10 with SMTP id s10so1920035wic.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.94.97 with SMTP id db1mr25511805wib.16.1326782189594; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fd1sm15141502wib.0.2012.01.16.22.36.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by werp11 with SMTP id p11so275432wer.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.138.226 with SMTP id a76mr6278961wej.51.1326782186998; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.87.204 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453A754C5B1@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453A754C549@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <E4309A9E-9BC7-4547-918A-224B6233B25C@mitre.org> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453A754C5B1@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:36:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGBSGjoajjjf+PaFE_byDxu-E4DOdhn+tPLCQVy-w1XZS878ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>
To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6d7ea90f34def04b6b38cec"
Cc: "wolter.eldering" <wolter.eldering@enovation.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in
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, 17 Jan 2012 06:36:32 -0000

That seems like a good idea, but then it should also be explicitly stated
what to do if the server issues non-expiring tokens.

aaronpk


On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:

> How do you feel about changing expires_in from OPTIONAL to RECOMMENDED?
>
> EHL
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richer, Justin P. [mailto:jricher@mitre.org]
> > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 7:29 PM
> > To: Eran Hammer
> > Cc: OAuth WG; wolter.eldering
> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in
> >
> > I think #3.
> >
> > #1 will be a common instance, and #2 (or its variant, a limited number of
> > uses) is a different expiration pattern than time that would want to
> have its
> > own expiration parameter name. I haven't seen enough concrete use of this
> > pattern to warrant its own extension though.
> >
> > Which is why I vote #3 - it's a configuration issue. Perhaps we should
> rather
> > say that the AS "SHOULD document the token behavior in the absence of
> this
> > parameter, which may include the token not expiring until explicitly
> revoked,
> > expiring after a set number of uses, or other expiration behavior."
> That's a lot
> > of words here though.
> >
> >  -- Justin
> >
> > On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
> >
> > > A question came up about the access token expiration when expires_in is
> > not included in the response. This should probably be made clearer in the
> > spec. The three options are:
> > >
> > > 1. Does not expire (but can be revoked) 2. Single use token 3.
> > > Defaults to whatever the authorization server decides and until
> > > revoked
> > >
> > > #3 is the assumed answer given the WG history. I'll note that in the
> spec,
> > but wanted to make sure this is the explicit WG consensus.
> > >
> > > EHL
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OAuth mailing list
> > > OAuth@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>