What about the example using SAML assertion? From: Brian Campbell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:42:21 -0700 To: Eran Hammer-lahav <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: oauth <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1 subsection on assertions
I believe the new assertion draft covers it and this change can be sidelined as long as the new draft has WG support to move forward. On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: In light of the new assertion draft, do we still want to make this change? EHL From: Brian Campbell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 07:25:12 -0700 To: oauth <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] TODO: Mike J./Chuck M. (or me) to draft 4.5.1 subsection on assertions One of the action items out of yesterday's meeting was to draft some text for a section 4.5.1 in core that defined the optional but recommended use of an "assertion" parameter for extension grants where the use of a single parameter to carry the grant/assertion was possible. Below is a first cut at some proposed text that hopefully avoids some of the awkwardness that EHL described in previous attempts to introduce such a parameter. Comments or edits or editorial improvements are, of course, welcome. But I think this hopefully captures the intent of what was discussed yesterday (and before). If we get some consensus to make this change, I think a couple of other actions are implied. - The IANA assertion parameter registration request (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-04#section-4.1) should be removed from the SAML draft and put into http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2 - The http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-00 spec will change the parameter it uses from jwt to assertion and drop the registration request for jwt (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-00#section-4.1) --- proposed text for sections 4.5 & 4.5.1 --- 4.5. Extensions The client uses an extension grant type by specifying the grant type using an absolute URI (defined by the authorization server) as the value of the "grant_type" parameter of the token endpoint, and by adding any additional parameters necessary. If the access token request is valid and authorized, the authorization server issues an access token and optional refresh token as described in Section 5.1. If the request failed client authentication or is invalid, the authorization server returns an error response as described in Section 5.2. 4.5.1 Assertion Based Extension Grants If the value of the extension grant can be serialized into a single parameter, as is case with a number of assertion formats, it is RECOMMENDED that that a parameter named "assertion" be used to carry the value. assertion REQUIRED. The assertion. The format and encoding of the assertion is defined by the authorization server or extension specification. For example, to request an access token using a SAML 2.0 assertion grant type as defined by [I-D.ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer], the client makes the following HTTP request using transport-layer security (line breaks are for display purposes only): POST /token HTTP/1.1 Host: server.example.com Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded grant_type=http%3A%2F%2Foauth.net%2Fgrant_type%2Fsaml%2F2.0%2F bearer&assertion=PEFzc2VydGlvbiBJc3N1ZUluc3RhbnQ9IjIwMTEtMDUtM [...omitted for brevity...]V0aG5TdGF0ZW1lbnQ-PC9Bc3NlcnRpb24- _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
