+1, what John said. Marius
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:39 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote: > I remain unconvinced that at this point MTI is going to be useful. > > I appreciate that some people want MAC, I could not support it being MTI. > > The below text with Bearer as MTI the only would be acceptable, if we need a > MTI token handler. > (I tend to think of token type, as bearer token type JWT/SAML etc, and this > issue is more on the handling of classes of tokens) > > John Bradley > > On 2011-12-04, at 6:37 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> Stephen says: >>> On 12/02/2011 03:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> Maybe what would work best is some text that suggests what I say >>>> above: that toolkits intended for use in implementing OAuth services >>>> in general... implement [X and/or Y], and that code written for a >>>> specific environment implement what makes sense for that environment. >>>> It seems to me that to require any particular implementation in the >>>> latter case is arbitrary and counter-productive, and doesn't help >>>> anything interoperate. Whereas general-purpose toolkits that >>>> implement everything DO help interop. >>> >>> That'd work just fine for me. >> >> OK, so here's what I suggest... I propose adding a new section 7.2, thus: >> >> ----------------------------------- >> 7.2 Access Token Implementation Considerations >> >> Access token types have to be mutually understood among the >> authorization server, the resource server, and the client -- the >> access token issues the token, the resource server validates it, and >> the client is required to understand the type, as noted in section >> 7.1, above. Because of that, interoperability of program code >> developed separately depends upon the token types that are supported >> in the code. >> >> Toolkits that are intended for general use (for building other clients >> and/or servers), therefore, SHOULD implement as many token types as >> practical, to ensure that programs developed with those toolkits are >> able to use the token types they need. In particular, all general-use >> toolkits MUST implement bearer tokens [...ref...] and MAC tokens >> [...ref...]. >> >> Purpose-built code, built without such toolkits, has somewhat more >> flexibility, as its developers know the specific environment they're >> developing for. There's clearly little point to including code to >> support a particular token type when it's known in advance that the >> type in question will never be used in the intended deployment. >> Developers of purpose-built code are encouraged to consider future >> extensions and to plan ahead for changes in circumstances, and might >> still want to include support for multiple token types. That said, >> the choice of token-type support for such purpose-built code is left >> to the developers and their specific requirements. >> ----------------------------------- >> >> I think that expresses a reasonable compromise that might actually be >> followed and might actually do some good. Comments? Can we go with >> this and close this issue? (And, sorry, I've been a Bad Chair, and >> haven't put this in the tracker.) >> >> Barry >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
