> On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Shane Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ah, I conflated Marketplace with Payments in my mind. What are your iframe > plans for Payments, and are there any alternatives to using an iframe, > possibly the redirect flow?
Possibly, we were hoping to provide payments in a low key way as possible and were doing our best to provide a flow similar to your iframe flow. i.e. * site does iframe login using your library * then opens up an iframe using our library using payments-client * a promise is completed in the calling site, when the payment is complete You can see that sort of flow here: http://pay.dev.mozaws.net/ <http://pay.dev.mozaws.net/> (video http://andymckay.github.io/presentations/mozilla-q2-2015-payments/media/pay-fxa-first-purchase.ogg <http://andymckay.github.io/presentations/mozilla-q2-2015-payments/media/pay-fxa-first-purchase.ogg>) The flows are independent, if the iframe flow for FxA was removed, our payments flow could still work in an iframe. So from our point of view, its more up to the clients that FxA has and what they’d like to do. We think the iframe is pretty spiffy though and I wish more people would use it. > Firstrun flow is distinct from your work, the first run flow is the tour that > is displayed the first time a Firefox user opens Firefox with a new profile. > > Thanks Andy, > Shane > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Andrew McKay <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I don't think the Marketplace ever supported the iframe flow, but you'd have > to ask the Marketplace about their plans (we don't work on it anymore). > > Would be concerned that this affects payments who were planning on using the > iframe flow using the library you wrote, but then you confused me by saying " > iframe support would still be available for the first run flow". > > Sorry, I'm not up on the terminology and don't know the full extent of your > proposal. > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Shane Tomlinson <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I propose we remove iframe support for OAuth reliers. > > We currently allow OAuth reliers and the upcoming firstrun flow to iframe > FxA. Iframe support was added to allow Marketplace to embed FxA in-content. > > Some fairly byzantine client-side checks are performed to ensure we aren't > opening users up to phishing attacks. Those checks are complex, and honestly, > pretty gross. > > Ryan Kelly asked a good question - if no OAuth reliers currently ifram FxA, > why do we even offer the functionality? > > Marketplace was able to integrate FxA without using an iframe. No other OAuth > reliers that I know of use the iframe. I'd like to rip out OAuth relier > iframe support and reduce the possible attack surface area. > > Without iframe support, could simplify the content server, 123done (a test > relier), and the fxa-relier-client. > > Note, iframe support would still be available for the first run flow, no > changes there. > > Andy and Stuart, this would primarily affect you. Does anybody else know of > an OAuth relier that iframes FxA? > > Shane > > ------------------------ > > [1] - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7034#section-2.1 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7034#section-2.1> > >
_______________________________________________ Dev-fxacct mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
