Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility for OAuth?

[Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Hannes. Great list of to-do items for the WG :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:08 AM
>
> This is probably the most important item were people will want to 
> write
> extensions for. Currently, we have the following onces in the 
> document:
>   1) Web Server
>   2) User Agent
>   3) Native Application
>   4) Autonomous
>   Note that the actual profile identifiers aren't clearly listed in 
> the
> document at the moment (or are inconsistent, such as "user_agent" and
> "user-agent" for the user agent profile).

Is the plan to have a separate document for each profile?  I'm assuming 
that we are all waiting for the draft-oath-v2 to stabilize (ps. it's 
gone from version 05 to 08 in a matter of 2-3 weeks, and now going to 
09). We need to lock-down, I think. Need to distinguish between 
major/significant changes to minor/typo fixes.


> An open question might be whether there is a possibility for an
> extension (other than a new profile) to define an optional parameter
> that may get used with an existing profile. Note that at the moment
> there is no registry for parameters.

It depends on what meaning of "profile" and "extension". If the optional 
parameter is used in one of the profiles (use-cases) only, then it 
should not be place into the core draft-oauth-v2. If the optional 
parameter ends-up being used in all the profiles (use-cases), then add 
it to the core. I think this is where you draw the line (otherwise all 
sorts of weird and wonderful parameters ends-up in the core draft).

/thomas/