Following from that (Justin: "url-defined grant type can also legally add and remove parameters from the endpoint, right?" / Eran: "Yes") does the assertion parameter still make sense to have in the core spec? I had sort of assumed that it would be going away in favor of whatever parameters any url-defined grant type would deem necessary. However, Eran's "working copy" of draft -11 as of 2010-09-03 still has the assertion parameter. Is that area still being worked on or was the intent to leave the parameter in for -11?
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > Yes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Justin Richer [mailto:jric...@mitre.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:27 PM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Simpilfying use of assertions when requesting an > access token > > +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
