On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 10:53 -0400, David Recordon wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org>
> wrote:
>         Your first example is the textbook case, actually. You're
>         still being
>         asked to authorize TweetDeck, which is identified by its
>         client_id
>         parameter. Say your laptop gets stolen -- you'd want to be
>         able to
>         differentiate between the two "TweetDeck" tokens listed on
>         your
>         authorized apps account instead of nuking all tokens for that
>         client.
> 
> 
> That makes sense, but none of the servers TweetDeck works with support
> this concept today. I like it, but only want to standardize what we've
> seen to work in the wild. (This is why I argued that the device flow
> shouldn't be in core because the community hasn't successfully
> deployed it yet.)


And likewise, I'm totally fine with it being in an extension. The
question was whether to put it in the UX extension or a separate
Instance-Data extension instead.

 
>         You're right in that the Facebook example you gave below
>         doesn't apply,
>         unless someone has multiple iPhones or Androids.
>         
>         XMPP already does this kind of thing, allowing you to set the
>         "Resource"
>         field so you know at some level which endpoint you're actually
>         talking
>         to, even though the account name is the same across all of
>         them.
>         
>         The important thing is that this information would be a hint,
>         meant to
>         be human-readable, and only trusted insofar as the client
>         itself is
>         trusted to present information (since it's intended to be used
>         in both
>         registered and unregistered/dynamic clients). The
>         instance_name would
>         not be a replacement for a registered client name, but an
>         optional
>         addendum to it. The server has the option of allowing the user
>         to edit
>         it, though I believe Google has some data about that not
>         actually
>         happening in practice.
>         
>         We've got two direct use cases for this. One system is a Java
>         WebStart
>         client that is accessible from a browser but stores its creds
>         on the
>         local machine. Different browsers and different machines can
>         get
>         different instances of the same app, and our users end up with
>         a whole
>         stack of authorizations for the same app with no way to tell
>         them apart
>         from the server after the fact. The other case is a system
>         that uses
>         email as the gateway, and each email address gets its own
>         authorization
>         token. In this case, all the credentials are stored on a
>         web/email
>         server but are tied to different entry points. However we end
>         up with
>         the same problem as above, where all instances of the same
>         client look
>         identical to the end user.
>         
>         All that this proposal really does is give us a standard slot
>         to put
>         identification information for the different tokens.
>         
>          -- justin
>         
>         
>         On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 22:06 -0400, David Recordon wrote:
>         > Hey Justin, what's a good example of where the instance name
>         parameter
>         > would be used? Desktop apps like TweetDeck just ask me to
>         authorize
>         > "TweetDesk" and don't separate between my laptop and
>         desktop. Another
>         > example would be our Facebook mobile apps but "Facebook for
>         iPhone"
>         > has a different client id than "Facebook for Android".
>         >
>         >
>         > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Justin Richer
>         <jric...@mitre.org>
>         > wrote:
>         >         Does the group have an opinion on adding the
>         instance
>         >         information that I
>         >         proposed before* to this UX extension vs. having it
>         live in
>         >         its own
>         >         extension?
>         >
>         >          -- Justin
>         >
>         >         *
>         >
>         http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg03717.html
>         >
>         >
>         >         On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 16:23 -0400, David Recordon
>         wrote:
>         >         > Given our implementation experience, an iPad
>         should use
>         >         "popup" as
>         >         > it's a full web browser on a reasonably large
>         screen.
>         >         Android and the
>         >         > iPhone should use "touch". I'd be happy to add
>         clarifying
>         >         language in
>         >         > the extension but am weary about adding the
>         complexity of
>         >         the client
>         >         > requesting dimensions.
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         > As a side note, this draft is now up
>         >         > at
>         http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-recordon-oauth-v2-ux-00.
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         > --David
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Marius Scurtescu
>         >         > <mscurte...@google.com> wrote:
>         >         >         David,
>         >         >
>         >         >         Here is some feedback I received
>         internally from
>         >         Greg Robbins:
>         >         >
>         >         >         "Having "display" as an extension is
>         useful, though
>         >         >         considering the
>         >         >         trend towards tablet devices like the
>         iPad, "touch"
>         >         and
>         >         >         "popup" seem
>         >         >         orthogonal rather than mutually exclusive.
>         >         >
>         >         >         It would also be nice if the client could
>         indicate
>         >         the
>         >         >         dimensions
>         >         >         available for display so the server can
>         make a
>         >         smarter
>         >         >         presentation.
>         >         >         Desktop, netbook, tablet, and mobile
>         screen
>         >         dimensions vary
>         >         >         widely
>         >         >         now."
>         >         >
>         >         >         Marius
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >         On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:51 PM, David
>         Recordon
>         >         >         <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
>         >         >         > I wrote this draft last month based on
>         discussions
>         >         on the
>         >         >         mailing list, the
>         >         >         > OpenID user experience extension (which
>         Facebook,
>         >         Google,
>         >         >         and Yahoo! have
>         >         >         > deployed), and some OAuth 2.0
>         implementation
>         >         experience from
>         >         >         Facebook. It
>         >         >         > defines language and display preferences
>         which the
>         >         client
>         >         >         can include in
>         >         >         > requests to the end-user authorization
>         endpoint.
>         >         >         > A previous draft included an immediate
>         mode
>         >         parameter but
>         >         >         further discussion
>         >         >         > has shown that it should be removed
>         until identity
>         >         >         information is also
>         >         >         > addressed. Identity is outside the scope
>         of this
>         >         particular
>         >         >         extension.
>         >         >         > I'd like this draft to become a working
>         group
>         >         document and
>         >         >         have done my best
>         >         >         > to make it represent the group's
>         consensus.
>         >         Unfortunately
>         >         >         the internet draft
>         >         >         > submission process is closed for a few
>         weeks until
>         >         after the
>         >         >         meeting. :-\
>         >         >         > Thanks,
>         >         >         > --David
>         >         >
>         >         >
>         >         >         >
>         _______________________________________________
>         >         >         > 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

Reply via email to