Chuck Mortimore <[email protected]> 写于 2012-12-04 10:26:50:
> Please feel free to suggest better language.
>
> Issuer simply allows the token service to know who created the
> assertion, so it can look them up and see if they're trusted.
> Effectively the same as an Issuer in SAML.
a conflict : "The token service is the assertion issuer" in assertion
document.
while you said "token service know who created the assertion"
I wonder if the following text is acceptable:
Issuer The unique identifier for the entity that issued the
assertion. Generally this is the entity that holds the key
material used to generate the assertion. The issuer may be either
an OAuth client (when assertions are self-issued) or any other
entity, e.g., a third party
token service, resource owner.
6.3. Client Acting on Behalf of a User
The Issuer of the assertion MUST identify the entity that issued
the assertion as recognized by the Authorization Server. If the
assertion is self-issued, the Issuer SHOULD be the "client_id".
If the assertion was issued by a Security Token Service (STS), the
Issuer SHOULD identify the STS as recognized by the Authorization
Server.If the assertion was issued by the resource owner, the
Issuer SHOULD identify the resource owner as recognized by the
Authorization
Server.
>
> -cmort
>
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Obviously, it is not so clear from the language there.
>
>
> Chuck Mortimore <[email protected]> 写于 2012-12-04 10:17:12:
>
> > There's no reason why it can't be resource owner today.
> >
> > On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, <[email protected]>
<[email protected]
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > +1.
> > And why it was not looked at that time?
> >
> > [email protected] 写于 2012-12-04 01:30:55:
> >
> > > Actually, I think it is a good time to start looking at the resourse
> > > owner issuing assertions@ (Interestingly enough, Hui-Lan had brought
> > > this up a couple of years ago.)
> > >
> > > Igor
> > >
> > > On 12/3/2012 3:58 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> > > I suppose, yes. I was reading it like that all the time.
> > > Whether it is or not, if it is still ok, it might be better to
> clarify it.
> > > Word like "third party" tends to be a bit of problem without
> > clearlydefining.
> > > I had similar experience in other fora.
> > >
> > > Nat
> > >
> > > Sent from iPad
> > >
> > > 2012/12/03 0:52、"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
の
> > > メッセ�`ジ:
> >
> > >
> > > could be Resource owner?
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email protected]>
> > > 发件人: [email protected]
> > > 2012-12-03 16:49
> > >
> > > 收件人
> > >
> > > "ext Nat Sakimura" <[email protected]>, "Brian Campbell" <
> > > [email protected]>, "oauth" <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > 抄送
> > >
> > > 主题
> > >
> > > Re: [OAUTH-WG] Assertion Framework - Why does issuer have to be
> > > either the client or a third party token service?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Nat,
> > >
> > > The current text essentially says that the assertion can either be
> > > created by the client (in which case it is self-signed) or it can be
> > > created by some other entity (which is then called the third party
> > > token service). So, this third party could be the authorization
server.
> > >
> > > Ciao
> > > Hannes
> > >
> > >
> > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of
> > > ext Nat Sakimura
> > > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:35 AM
> > > To: Brian Campbell; oauth
> > > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Assertion Framework - Why does issuer have to be
> > > either the client or a third party token service?
> > >
> > > Hi Brian,
> > >
> > >
> > > The assertion framework defines the Issuer as:
> > >
> > > Issuer The unique identifier for the entity that issued the
> > > assertion. Generally this is the entity that holds the key
> > > material used to generate the assertion. The issuer may be
either
> > > an OAuth client (when assertions are self-issued) or a third
party
> > > token service.
> > >
> > > I was wondering why it has to be either the client or a third party
> > > token service.
> > > Conceptually, it could be any token service (functionality)
> > residingin any of
> > >
> > > the stakeholders (Resource Owner, OAuth Client, Authorization
Server, or
> > > a third party).
> > >
> > >
> > > I would appreciate if you could clarify why is the case.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> > > Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> > > http://nat.sakimura.org/
> > > @_nat_en
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OAuth mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OAuth mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OAuth mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
