Well, I guess I better get going with the SASL thing and get a working implementation done based on -12 and the bearer token spec.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:27 PM > To: William Mills; Marius Scurtescu > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-oauth-v2-12.txt > > This is a good example of why this is currently out of scope. We have > little to no implementation experience with such a setup. > > EHL > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Mills [mailto:wmi...@yahoo-inc.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:17 PM > > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Marius Scurtescu > > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-oauth-v2-12.txt > > > > Actually I was envisioning a situation where you have multiple > possibly > > disparate endpoints that rely on authenticator like Google or Yahoo. > One > > company decides they want to allow federated login and accept SAML > > assertions, another accepts bearer, yet a 3rd IMAP server accepts > both some > > form of signed auth and bearer. I think discovery for a service > should allow > > the service to specify the type(s) of auth accepted and the client > can choose > > one that it supports and pass that on to the token server. The > resource > > server has to know what auth types are supported by the token server. > I > > would rather have this explicit in the discovery information and > support > > multiple types in the same SASL mechanism than have to offer N > > mechanisms (or 2N if channel binding is in play). > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf > > > Of Eran Hammer-Lahav > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:58 PM > > > To: Marius Scurtescu > > > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-oauth-v2-12.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Marius Scurtescu [mailto:mscurte...@google.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:43 PM > > > > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > > > > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action:draft-ietf-oauth-v2-12.txt > > > > > > > >> 1. The token_type parameter is required in responses from the > > > server. > > > > >> If the server supports multiple formats, which one will be > used? > > > In > > > > >> this case, would it make sense to allow the client to request > a > > > specific > > > > format? > > > > >> > > > > >> For example, if the authorization server supports both MAC and > > > > >> BEARER, which one will the server issue? > > > > > > > > > > It might in some cases, but I suspect most providers are going > to > > > decide > > > > which scheme provides the right level of security for them and > just > > > use that. > > > > If you are going to allow both MAC and BEARER, you are basically > > > letting > > > > clients decide which level to operate at. Do you have a need or > plan > > > to > > > > support multiple token types? > > > > > > > > For now we are planning to support only bearer, but I am sure > some > > > form of > > > > signed tokens will follow sooner than later. At which point we > would > > > have to > > > > support both. > > > > > > > > In most cases I think it is up to the client to decide. > > > > > > Interesting. Given that you are not planning on supporting this in > the > > > near future, I think we should wait until there is more deployment > > > experience in allowing the client to negotiate the token type. But > of > > > course, you are welcome to submit a proposal for inclusion on the > WG > > > new charter. > > > > > > 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
