I like splitting on space like scopes. But I'm fine with registering all possible compositions that make sense, if you prefer.
As I posted to the group about a month ago, we are planning on supporting response_type=none response_type=code response_type=token response_type=signed_request token response_type=token signed_request (and maybe "code token"/"token code") We already have support for response_type=none and the signed_request one is a few weeks out. Paul On 7/12/11 1:35 PM, "Eran Hammer-Lahav" <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: >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 _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
