Separate from the question posed here, we are seeing customer demand for
one-time semantics, but agree with Justin that this would best belong in
a dedicated extension parameter and not the default
paul
On 1/16/12 10:29 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
I think #3.
#1 will be a common instance, and #2 (or its variant, a limited number of uses)
is a different expiration pattern than time that would want to have its own
expiration parameter name. I haven't seen enough concrete use of this pattern
to warrant its own extension though.
Which is why I vote #3 - it's a configuration issue. Perhaps we should rather say that
the AS "SHOULD document the token behavior in the absence of this parameter, which
may include the token not expiring until explicitly revoked, expiring after a set number
of uses, or other expiration behavior." That's a lot of words here though.
-- Justin
On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
A question came up about the access token expiration when expires_in is not
included in the response. This should probably be made clearer in the spec. The
three options are:
1. Does not expire (but can be revoked)
2. Single use token
3. Defaults to whatever the authorization server decides and until revoked
#3 is the assumed answer given the WG history. I'll note that in the spec, but
wanted to make sure this is the explicit WG consensus.
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
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
