IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-05.txt

Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com> Tue, 22 July 2014 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <t.broyer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B011A0ABF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XkwcCkVzu_Yy for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22D1B1A0AC6 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hr17so5747507lab.2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=X6zzhwXtNXe1el3TNkqWI15EIcbCsIZ7b7EBvfrfGtU=; b=tMSs+RlvvxqzwGFkKobscAHjWf8AvykqCYegS9AA13jDUovFyfJsSSFUzQpRqBQQSF 1iseeU5wB5n2QL/lrZ6b//rnPT7dOjlW8QbYhfuRBLgCkJE2Zcc5bMmDqqXmPJJx7R48 yV1RyF6Rm6wVhmoj+S6H/XU/Nv6At2VyStgYMKyk5uNWYhH68vMhDg1X+ZInNlzO89p8 ULIxqd11ymPu35mJPVnvb7Q4JJ9ls3fGMwuABE9vO2syzvwbbG6XORg6S42SVNG1B1ZH 5Hifu3XO/lJ/dQ2EmYbH5r/v53gvRP7OpUOoY7Y/OoX0l1u3+6DnSPxpdeky6MHdLsRn 7cDQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.30.10 with SMTP id o10mr21542022lah.41.1406028662426; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.113.73 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439ADDAA2D@TK5EX14MBXC294.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <20140721185955.29738.31476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439ADDA25E@TK5EX14MBXC294.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAEayHEO-_i+cB6mtb_OUaXF4OfyTrYwfv1mn2EYS-KEzTKY1GA@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439ADDAA2D@TK5EX14MBXC294.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:30:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEayHEO1W3axmpiKYGvGRn7vnS7NDNi41t4cAukMBKSB783yUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0158c7b4f7d17904fec68e13"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/z-ZDCo2YUCzrEAkoWHno0KSc5os
Cc: "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-05.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 22 Jul 2014 11:31:07 -0000

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>  Thanks for your review, Thomas.  The “prompt=consent” definition being
> missing is an editorial error.  It should be:
>
>
>
> consent
>
> The Authorization Server SHOULD prompt the End-User for consent before
> returning information to the Client. If it cannot obtain consent, it MUST
> return an error, typically consent_required.
>
>
>
> I’ll plan to add it in the next draft.
>

It looks like the consent_required error needs to be defined too, and you
might have forgotten to also import account_selection_required from OpenID
Connect.


>
>
> I agree that there’s no difference between a response with multiple “amr”
> values that includes “mfa” and one that doesn’t.  Unless a clear use case
> for why “mfa” is needed can be identified, we can delete it in the next
> draft.
>

Thanks.

How about "pwd" then? I fully understand that I should return "pwd" if the
user authenticated using a password, but what "the service if a client
secret is used" means in the definition for the "pwd" value?

(Nota: I know you're at IETF-90, I'm ready to wait 'til you come back ;-) )

-- 
Thomas Broyer
/tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email