+1 

we just discussed the need for adding grant types in order support 
Telekom-specific user authentication mechanisms. So this proposal comes right 
in time :-)

regards,
Torsten.



Am 02.09.2010 um 23:27 schrieb Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org>:

> +1
> 
> I've never liked the notion of not being able to extend the "grant type"
> field, and this change addresses that particular gripe.
> 
> Just so I'm clear here: an extension that defines its own url-defined
> grant type can also legally add and remove parameters from the endpoint,
> right?
> 
> -- Justin
> 
> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 17:11 -0400, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> I would like to make this change in -11:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Instead of the current user of the ‘assertion’ grant type –
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  POST /token HTTP/1.1
>> 
>>  Host: server.example.com
>> 
>>  Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  grant_type=assertion&
>> 
>>  assertion_type=urn%3Aoasis%3Anames%3Atc%3ASAML%3A2.0%3Aassertion&
>> 
>>  assertion=PHNhbWxwOl[...omitted for brevity...]ZT4%3D
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Drop the ‘assertion’ grant type and put the assertion type directly in
>> the grant_type parameter:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  POST /token HTTP/1.1
>> 
>>  Host: server.example.com
>> 
>>  Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  grant_type=urn%3Aoasis%3Anames%3Atc%3ASAML%3A2.0%3Aassertion&
>> 
>>  assertion=PHNhbWxwOl[...omitted for brevity...]ZT4%3D
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In other words, the grant_type parameter value will be defined as:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -          authorization_code
>> 
>> -          password
>> 
>> -          client_credentials
>> 
>> -          refresh_token
>> 
>> -          an abolute URI (extensions)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I considered turning all the values into URIs but found it to be
>> counter-intuitive. The practice of using “official” short names and
>> extension URIs is well established and is already the general
>> architecture used here. This just makes it cleaner. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I ran this idea by Brian Campbell and Chuck Mortimore who are
>> generally supportive of the idea.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Any objections?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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

Reply via email to