Yeah, that works for me. On Sat, Mar 7, 2020, 9:37 AM Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian: does that meet your requirements? > > If not, how about if we refer to OIDC as an example extension without > saying it is implicit? > ᐧ > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 8:29 AM Torsten Lodderstedt < > tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > >> I think keeping the response type as extension point and not mentioning >> implicit at all is sufficient to support Brian’s objective. >> >> Am 07.03.2020 um 17:06 schrieb Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> How about if we add in a nonnormative reference to OIDC as an explicit >> example of an extension: >> >> "For example, OIDC defines an implicit grant with additional security >> features." >> >> or similar language >> ᐧ >> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 5:27 AM Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The name implicit grant is unfortunately somewhat misleading/confusing >>> but, for the case at hand, the extension mechanism isn't grant type so much >>> as response type and even response mode. >>> >>> The perspective shared during the office hours call was, paraphrasing as >>> best I can, that there are legitimate uses of implicit style flows in >>> OpenID Connect (that likely won't be updated) and it would be really nice >>> if this new 2.1 or whatever it's going to be document didn't imply that >>> they were disallowed or problematic or otherwise create unnecessary FUD or >>> confusion for the large population of existing deployments. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:56 PM Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm looking to close out this topic. I heard that Brian and Vittorio >>>> shared some points of view in the office hours, and wanted to confirm: >>>> >>>> + Remove implicit flow from OAuth 2.1 and continue to highlight that >>>> grant types are an extension mechanism. >>>> >>>> For example, if OpenID Connect were to be updated to refer to OAuth 2.1 >>>> rather than OAuth 2..0, OIDC could define the implicit grant type with all >>>> the appropriate considerations. >>>> >>>> >>>> ᐧ >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:49 PM Dominick Baier < >>>> dba...@leastprivilege.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> No - please get rid of it. >>>>> >>>>> ——— >>>>> Dominick Baier >>>>> >>>>> On 18. February 2020 at 21:32:31, Dick Hardt (dick.ha...@gmail.com) >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey List >>>>> >>>>> (I'm using the OAuth 2.1 name as a placeholder for the doc that Aaron, >>>>> Torsten, and I are working on) >>>>> >>>>> Given the points Aaron brought up in >>>>> >>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/hXEfLXgEqrUQVi7Qy8X_279DCNU >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have concerns with dropping the implicit flow from the >>>>> OAuth 2.1 document so that developers don't use it? >>>>> >>>>> /Dick >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>>> >>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and >>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any >>> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.. >>> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender >>> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from >>> your computer. Thank you.* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> -- _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
