-----Original Message-----
From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:26 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: OAuth WG ([email protected])
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] in-app logout?
Hi Eran,
in my perception, there is some support on the list for having a request to
revoke refresh tokens. Will you add such a request to the specification? Do
you need a text proposal?
regards,
Torsten.
IMHO this would look more like a hack than proper protocol design. We
need a delete/revoke operation that's the pendant to the other token
operations (i.e.
crud ops).
Hubert
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Beau
Lebens<[email protected]> wrote:
Could this just be implemented through support for a scope change
where scope=none or revoke or something?
On Friday, May 21, 2010, Lukas Rosenstock<[email protected]>
wrote:
Why not simply add this functionality to the token endpoint?The same
place that was used to fetch the access token first or refresh it could be used
to revoke the same token with another request. The only requirement
would be to define something like type=revoke.
I feel that is much easier than making the token a URL which supports
DELETE.
However, any mechanism will break implementations that rely on
minimal or no communication between authorization server and protected
resource, because all protected resources have to be informed.
Regards, Lukas
2010/5/16 Dick Hardt<[email protected]>
James: An important capability of the refresh token is that it *can* be a
self contained token in that is not an id, but a signed token that can be
examined and acted upon on presentation.
Torsten: enabling a client to revoke a refresh token looks like a useful
mechanism. I anticipate it will be viewed as a vitamin feature rather than a
painkiller and will fall by the wayside unless the security conscience rally to
have it included.
-- Dick
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Manger, James
H<[email protected]> wrote:
Torsten,
What about refresh token revocation/deletion?
HTTP already has a method to do this: DELETE It just needs each
token to have a URI.
Tokens (almost) already have URIs -- its just not immediately obvious
because the URI has to be built from a common token endpoint and a
refresh_token.
I think it would improve the spec if refresh_token was renamed to, say,
token_id; and its value defined as a URI (which can be a relative URI so the
string may not need to change at all).
To refresh a token you POST to the token's URI.
To delete a token you send a DELETE request to the token's URI.
It doesn't cause major changes, but there are some benefits.
It is a more web-style design.
It leaves only 1 type of token in the spec -- an access token -- which
simplifies the text and aids understanding.
There are no arguments about length, allowed chars etc because it is a
URI -- a well-known type, often with native support.
Its obvious how to delete the token as there is a standard HTTP method
DELETE to apply to the token URI.
If a particular service supported an additional way to delete items in its
API (eg POST with a method=delete query parameter) that could apply to
the OAuth part as well.
--
James Manger
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
--
http://lukasrosenstock.net/
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
