I strongly object to a mandatory-to-implement clause for the MAC scheme. They
are unnecessary and market forces have shown that implementers do not want or
need this kind of an authentication scheme.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 1:38 PM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: oauth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
Stephen says:
> On 12/02/2011 03:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Maybe what would work best is some text that suggests what I say
>> above: that toolkits intended for use in implementing OAuth services
>> in general... implement [X and/or Y], and that code written for a
>> specific environment implement what makes sense for that environment.
>> It seems to me that to require any particular implementation in the
>> latter case is arbitrary and counter-productive, and doesn't help
>> anything interoperate. Whereas general-purpose toolkits that
>> implement everything DO help interop.
>
> That'd work just fine for me.
OK, so here's what I suggest... I propose adding a new section 7.2, thus:
-----------------------------------
7.2 Access Token Implementation Considerations
Access token types have to be mutually understood among the authorization
server, the resource server, and the client -- the access token issues the
token, the resource server validates it, and the client is required to
understand the type, as noted in section 7.1, above. Because of that,
interoperability of program code developed separately depends upon the token
types that are supported in the code.
Toolkits that are intended for general use (for building other clients and/or
servers), therefore, SHOULD implement as many token types as practical, to
ensure that programs developed with those toolkits are able to use the token
types they need. In particular, all general-use toolkits MUST implement bearer
tokens [...ref...] and MAC tokens [...ref...].
Purpose-built code, built without such toolkits, has somewhat more flexibility,
as its developers know the specific environment they're developing for.
There's clearly little point to including code to support a particular token
type when it's known in advance that the type in question will never be used in
the intended deployment.
Developers of purpose-built code are encouraged to consider future extensions
and to plan ahead for changes in circumstances, and might still want to include
support for multiple token types. That said, the choice of token-type support
for such purpose-built code is left to the developers and their specific
requirements.
-----------------------------------
I think that expresses a reasonable compromise that might actually be followed
and might actually do some good. Comments? Can we go with this and close this
issue? (And, sorry, I've been a Bad Chair, and haven't put this in the
tracker.)
Barry
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
