Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection

Eve Maler <> Wed, 23 January 2013 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703AD21F8200 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:18:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.293
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_DOMAIN_NOVOWEL=0.5, SARE_URI_CONS7=0.306, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65-wk6BOAFS2 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A683F21F8598 for <>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:18:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DDB9A6E8A; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:18:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P0Hsm9Qsy0HP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B9109A6E68; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
From: Eve Maler <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:18:24 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <-6134323107835063788@unknownmsgid> <> <>
To: Sergey Beryozkin <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: Paul Bryan <>, " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:18:31 -0000

Agreed that REST purity may come at a cost that's too high. On the other hand, it's a useful exercise to imagine how much more benefit could potentially be gotten "for free" if we look at it through a pure-REST lens, not just with what's already been specified but the whole picture.

If what you're registering is a client descriptor, then creating a new one, updating an existing one, deleting, and even patching could come for free if something like the following framework is used:

With standard libraries possibly floating around to support this framework (I think Paul B wrote one; maybe he open-sourced it?), it starts to become a lot cheaper to support client registration on both sides of the interaction.


On 23 Jan 2013, at 8:34 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <> wrote:

> On 23/01/13 15:47, Justin Richer wrote:
>> Which brings up an interesting question for the Registration doc: right
>> now, it's set up as a single endpoint with three operations. We could
>> instead define three endpoints for the different operations.
>> I've not been keen to make that deep of a cutting change to it, but it
>> would certainly be cleaner and more RESTful API design. What do others
>> think?
> IMHO the purity should be balanced against the practicality/simplicity
> of the implementation.
> Talking about 3 endpoints at the spec level may be treated as the exact
> requirement to have 3 separate application endpoints for the single type
> of activity, the registration. Can the spec be re-worded such that
> "resources" are used instead of endpoints or similar, example, "resource
> available at /a will support the following, at /b - something else", or
> may be something similar,  thus it will read better too from the design
> point of view, and let implementers to use 1 endpoint or 3 ones,
> whichever way they prefer it
> Thanks, Sergey
>> -- Justin
>> On 01/22/2013 08:05 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>> "Action" goes against REST principle.
>>> I do not think it is a good idea.
>>> =nat via iPhone
>>> Jan 23, 2013 4:00、Justin Richer<>  のメッセージ:
>>>> (CC'ing the working group)
>>>> I'm not sure what the "action/operation" flag would accomplish. The idea behind having different endpoints in OAuth is that they each do different kinds of things. The only "action/operation" that I had envisioned for the introspection endpoint is introspection itself: "I have a token, what does it mean?"
>>>> Note that client_id and client_secret *can* already be used at this endpoint if the server supports that as part of their client credentials setup. The examples use HTTP Basic with client id and secret right now. Basically, the client can authenticate however it wants, including any of the methods that OAuth2 allows on the token endpoint. It could also authenticate with an access token. At least, that's the intent of the introspection draft -- if that's unclear, I'd be happy to accept suggested changes to clarify this text.
>>>>  -- Justin
>>>> On 01/22/2013 01:00 PM, Shiu Fun Poon wrote:
>>>>> Justin,
>>>>> This spec is looking good..
>>>>> One thing I would like to recommend is to add "action"/"operation" to the request.  (and potentially add client_id and client_secret)
>>>>> So the request will be like :
>>>>> token                                             REQUIRED
>>>>> operation (wording to be determine)  OPTIONAL inquire (default) | revoke ...
>>>>> resource_id                                    OPTIONAL
>>>>> client_id                                         OPTIONAL
>>>>> client_secret                                   OPTIONAL
>>>>> And for the OAuth client information, it should be an optional parameter (in case it is a public client or client is authenticated with SSL mutual authentication).
>>>>> Please consider.
>>>>> ShiuFun

Eve Maler                        
+1 425 345 6756