I will withdraw my objections to the change (parsing the response_type string) if enough support is present. If you care about it, please speak out now.
EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Mike Jones > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:32 PM > To: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types > > As a data point motivating this functionality, the OpenID Connect Core spec > currently includes: > > response_type > A space delimited, case sensitive list of string > values (Pending OAuth 2.0 changes). Acceptable values include > "code", "token", and "none". The value MUST include "code" for > requesting an Authorization Code, "token" for requesting an Access > Token, and "none" if no response is needed. > > The OpenID Connect Session Management spec also defines an "id_token" > response_type. Combinations of these (other than "none") are meaningful > and used. > > The syntax for this can change, but this functionality is very important to > OpenID Connect as it is currently written. > > Thanks, > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Breno de Medeiros > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:48 AM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > Cc: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:36, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> > wrote: > > That's pretty farfetched. In previous versions we had 'code_and_token' > which was a composite value but without any special characters. If people > think that we need to force such values to avoid this claimed developer > confusion, let's drop the + and be done. > > > > Maybe far fetched, but it's already available in our production environment -- > we had implemented the code_and_token approach earlier (though not > documented it) but abandoned that route as we thought the exponential > explosion was harmful when we started contemplating adding new types > and allowing various combinations of them. > > > The only requirement I was asked to cover was to allow response type > extensibility. If there is WG consensus to also support the requirement of > composite values using any order, we can discuss that. > > Let's. > > > > > In addition, defining a parsing method adds a significant amount of new > complexity beyond just splitting the string: > > > > * It allows for composite values that make no sense (since anything goes, > composite values are not registered, just the components). > > * Additional error codes are needed to indicate bad format, unsupported > values (specify which one), unsupported combinations, etc. > > * Developers lose the benefit of a simple registry with every possible > combination they may choose. > > > > So the two questions are: > > > > 1. Do you find the + proposal as defined in -18 to be useful or confusing? > > It is ugly. > > > 2. Should the protocol support dynamic composite values with the added > complexity (breaking change)? > > That's my preference. > > > > > EHL > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:br...@google.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11:18 AM > >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > >> Cc: Marius Scurtescu; OAuth WG > >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:10, Eran Hammer-Lahav > >> <e...@hueniverse.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Requiring parsing of the response type parameter is a big change at > >> > this > >> point. Even if it is a decent idea, I'm against it for the sole > >> reason that I don't want to introduce such a change - we're done. > >> > > >> > The + character makes reading values easier because it give > >> > composites of > >> existing, individually defined values, a special meaning to *people*, > >> but it does not change any existing code or adds any work. Servers > >> will still perform simple string comparison. Parsing a list of values is > unnecessary complexity. > >> Developers can learn to put values in their expected order (since > >> they are all going to cut-n-paste anyway). > >> > >> I disagree. I believe that servers will either not support the > >> composite types at all, or will allow developers to enter it into any > >> order to avoid developer pain. > >> > >> Also, developers will _not_ cut-and-paste. They will expect the fact > >> that order is not meaningful by interacting with providers that don't > >> perform exact string matching and then have interoperability issues > >> with compliant implementations. > >> > >> > > >> > I rather drop the special character then add parsing, but I think > >> > it is a useful > >> *convention*. > >> > > >> > Do people want to keep it or drop it? > >> > > >> > EHL > >> > > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:br...@google.com] > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:59 AM > >> >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > >> >> Cc: Marius Scurtescu; OAuth WG > >> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] defining new response types > >> >> > >> >> Imposing order and exact string matching on response_type's while > >> >> simultaneously supporting a special character '+' and introducing > >> >> the concept of composite response_type is a poor compromise, > IMNSHO. > >> What > >> >> is the rationale to fear allowing multiple-valued response_type as > >> >> we have for other parameters in the spec? > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:51, Eran Hammer-Lahav > >> >> <e...@hueniverse.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > As for the plus encoding we can choose another char or give an > >> example. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Jul 11, 2011, at 18:07, "Marius Scurtescu" > >> >> > <mscurte...@google.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> If I read section 8.4 correctly it seems that new response > >> >> >> types can be defined but composite values must be registered > explicitly. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I don't think this approach scales too well. OpenID Connect for > >> >> >> example is adding a new response type: id_token. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> id_token can be combined with either code or token and > >> >> >> potentially with both of them, the following combinations must > >> >> >> be registered as a > >> >> >> result: > >> >> >> code+id_token > >> >> >> token+id_token > >> >> >> code+token+id_token > >> >> >> > >> >> >> and this assumes that code+token is already registered. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I think it makes more sense to define response_type as a space > >> >> >> separated list of items, where each item can be individually > >> >> >> registered. I do realize that this complicates things quite a > >> >> >> bit (not we have to define and deal with both composite > >> >> >> response_type and the individual items). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> As a side note, using + as separator could cause lots of problems. > >> >> >> If people naively type "code+toke" it will be decoded as "code > token". > >> >> >> No one will remember the hex code for +. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Marius > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> >> OAuth mailing list > >> >> >> OAuth@ietf.org > >> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> --Breno > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> --Breno > > > > > > -- > --Breno > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
