IMHO, changing the semantics of "response_type" @ authz endpoint this way is not a good thing.
Instead, defining a new parameter "response_type" @ token endpoint, as I described in my previous message, probably is better. At least, it does not change the semantics of the parameters of RFC6749. Nat 2014-07-23 12:48 GMT-04:00 Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com>: > No, I mean response_type=none and response_type=id_token don't generate a > code or access token so you don't use the Token Endpoint (which is not the > same as the Authentication Endpoint BTW). > With response_type=code_for_id_token, you get a code and exchange it for > an id_token only, rather than an access_token, so you're changing the > semantics of the Token Endpoint. > > I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that you can't really compare none > and id_token with code_for_id_token. > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Richer, Justin P. <jric...@mitre.org> > wrote: > >> It's only "not using the token endpoint" because the token endpoint >> copy-pasted and renamed the authentication endpoint. >> >> -- Justin >> >> On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Except that these are about not using the Token Endpoint at all, >> whereas the current proposal is about the Token Endpoint not returning an >> access_token field in the JSON. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The response_type “none” is already used in practice, which returns no >>> access token. It was accepted by the designated experts and registered in >>> the IANA OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Types registry at >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xml#endpoint. >>> The registered “id_token” response type also returns no access token. >>> >>> >>> >>> So I think the question of whether response types that result in no >>> access token being returned are acceptable within OAuth 2.0 is already >>> settled, as a practical matter. Lots of OAuth implementations are already >>> using such response types. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Hunt >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:09 AM >>> *To:* Nat Sakimura >>> *Cc:* <oauth@ietf.org> >>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for >>> draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-05.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes. This is why it has to be discussed in the IETF. >>> >>> >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> >>> @independentid >>> >>> www.independentid.com >>> >>> phil.h...@oracle.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Reading back the RFC6749, I am not sure if there is a good way of >>> suppressing access token from the response and still be OAuth. It will >>> break whole bunch of implicit definitions like: >>> >>> >>> >>> authorization server >>> The server issuing access tokens to the client after successfully >>> authenticating the resource owner and obtaining authorization. >>> >>> >>> >>> After all, OAuth is all about issuing access tokens. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also, I take back my statement on the grant type in my previous mail. >>> >>> >>> >>> The definition of grant and grant_type are respectively: >>> >>> >>> >>> grant >>> >>> credential representing the resource owner's authorization >>> >>> >>> >>> grant_type >>> >>> (string representing the) type of grant sent to the token endpoint >>> to obtain the access token >>> >>> >>> >>> Thus, the grant sent to the token endpoint in this case is still 'code'. >>> >>> >>> >>> Response type on the other hand is not so well defined in RFC6749, but >>> it seems it is representing what is to be returned from the authorization >>> endpoint. To express what is to be returned from token endpoint, perhaps >>> defining a new parameter to the token endpoint, which is a parallel to the >>> response_type to the Authorization Endpoint seems to be a more symmetric >>> way, though I am not sure at all if that is going to be OAuth any more. One >>> straw-man is to define a new parameter called response_type to the token >>> endpoint such as: >>> >>> >>> >>> response_type >>> >>> OPTIONAL. A string representing what is to be returned from the >>> token endpoint. >>> >>> >>> >>> Then define the behavior of the endpoint according to the values as the >>> parallel to the multi-response type spec. >>> >>> http://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0.html >>> >>> >>> >>> Nat >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-07-23 7:21 GMT-04:00 Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com>: >>> >>> The draft is very clear. >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 0:46, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The new grant type that I was talking about was >>> >>> "authorization_code_but_do_not_return_access_nor_refresh_token", so to >>> speak. >>> >>> It does not return anything per se, but an extension can define >>> something on top of it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Then, OIDC can define a binding to it so that the binding only returns >>> ID Token. >>> >>> This binding work should be done in OIDF. Should there be such a grant >>> type, >>> >>> it will be an extremely short spec. >>> >>> >>> >>> At the same time, if any other specification wanted to define >>> >>> other type of tokens and have it returned from the token endpoint, >>> >>> it can also use this grant type. >>> >>> >>> >>> If what you want is to define a new grant type that returns ID Token >>> only, >>> >>> then, I am with Justin. Since "other response than ID Token" is only >>> >>> theoretical, this is a more plausible way forward, I suppose. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nat >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-07-22 14:30 GMT-04:00 Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu>: >>> >>> So the draft would literally turn into: >>> >>> "The a4c response type and grant type return an id_token from the token >>> endpoint with no access token. All parameters and values are defined in >>> OIDC." >>> >>> Seems like the perfect mini extension draft for OIDF to do. >>> >>> --Justin >>> >>> /sent from my phone/ >>> >>> >>> On Jul 22, 2014 10:29 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > What about just defining a new grant type in this WG? >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-07-22 12:56 GMT-04:00 Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com>: >>> >> >>> >> That would be nice. However oidc still needs the new grant type in >>> order to implement the same flow. >>> >> >>> >> Phil >>> >> >>> >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:35, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> +1 to Justin. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-07-22 9:54 GMT-04:00 Richer, Justin P. <jric...@mitre.org>: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Errors like these make it clear to me that it would make much more >>> sense to develop this document in the OpenID Foundation. It should be >>> something that directly references OpenID Connect Core for all of these >>> terms instead of redefining them. It's doing authentication, which is >>> fundamentally what OpenID Connect does on top of OAuth, and I don't see a >>> good argument for doing this work in this working group. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- Justin >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Mike Jones < >>> michael.jo...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks for your review, Thomas. The “prompt=consent” definition >>> being missing is an editorial error. It should be: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> consent >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The Authorization Server SHOULD prompt the End-User for consent >>> before returning information to the Client. If it cannot obtain consent, it >>> MUST return an error, typically consent_required. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I’ll plan to add it in the next draft. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> It looks like the consent_required error needs to be defined too, >>> and you might have forgotten to also import account_selection_required from >>> OpenID Connect. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I agree that there’s no difference between a response with >>> multiple “amr” values that includes “mfa” and one that doesn’t. Unless a >>> clear use case for why “mfa” is needed can be identified, we can delete it >>> in the next draft. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> How about "pwd" then? I fully understand that I should return >>> "pwd" if the user authenticated using a password, but what "the service if >>> a client secret is used" means in the definition for the "pwd" value? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> (Nota: I know you're at IETF-90, I'm ready to wait 'til you come >>> back ;-) ) >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Thomas Broyer >>> >>>>> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>> >>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>> >>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>> >>> @_nat_en >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> OAuth mailing list >>> >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>> > Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>> > http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>> > @_nat_en >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>> >>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>> @_nat_en >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>> >>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>> @_nat_en >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Broyer >> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> >> > > > -- > Thomas Broyer > /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) Chairman, OpenID Foundation http://nat.sakimura.org/ @_nat_en
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
