Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Mike Jones
This doesn’t work for me, as it doesn’t mesh well with the case of the token containing the expiration time. For instance, both SAML and JWT tokens can contain expiration times. In this case, the expires_in time is unnecessary and the token may have no default expiration time and will expire

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Eran Hammer
This is clearly not a solution as actual implementation feedback raised this issue. We have to document the meaning of this parameter missing. Also, the example of a self-contained token does not conflict with also providing this information via the parameter whenever possible to improve

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Mike Jones
Your new wording is better, as it doesn’t conflict with the possibility of the expiration time being in the token. -- Mike From: Eran Hammer [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:30 AM To: Mike Jones; Aaron

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Phishing with Client Application Name Spoofing

2012-01-17 Thread Mark Mcgloin
Andre Please feel free to propose text, perhaps with a better title than I suggested. During our discussion on section 4.1.4 (End-user credentials phished using compromised or embedded browser), we have decided on the countermeasure below, albeit for a different threat - phishing client as

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread John Bradley
I am OK with that. The expiration time in the token is intended for the protected resource. The client inspecting the token is a potential optimization in cases where the JWT is not encrypted to the protected resource. I think leaving it open to inspect the token or otherwise provide it in

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Paul Madsen
Separate from the question posed here, we are seeing customer demand for one-time semantics, but agree with Justin that this would best belong in a dedicated extension parameter and not the default paul On 1/16/12 10:29 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote: I think #3. #1 will be a common instance,

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Richer, Justin P.
Information inside the token is outside of OAuth completely, so I like Eran's suggestion that doesn't mention how this information would be communicated. However, I would like to leave it open for different expiration semantics beyond expiration time. I suggest the following text (which could

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Paul Madsen
Hi Torsten, yes the use case in question is payment-based as well. Your suggestion for the client to infer one-time usage from a missing expires_in contradicts the general consensus of this thread does it not? paul On 1/17/12 11:38 AM, tors...@lodderstedt.net wrote: Hi, isn't one-time

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread William Mills
expires_in is always a hint to the client about when it might expect to need to renew the token.  It's never authoritative, so it never conflicts with an expiry time in the token or any other actual mechanism to expire the token. From: Mike Jones

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Richer, Justin P.
It's a hint to the client so that well-behaved clients don't need to fail with a limited use token to know that it's probably bad. It lets you throw it away and re-auth early. -- Justin From: William Mills [wmi...@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Torsten Lodderstedt
Hi Paul, that's not what I meant. The Client should know which tokens should be one time usage based on the API description. The authz server must not return expires_in because this would not make any sense in this case. regards, Torsten Paul Madsen paul.mad...@gmail.com schrieb: Hi

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Paul Madsen
scope sometimes feels like SAML authncontext - anything can go in there :-) as I said to Torsten, perhaps an extension is overkill. Just looking for a best practice On 1/17/12 12:00 PM, William Mills wrote: Does this require an extension? That seems something easy to overload on scope.

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Richer, Justin P.
By the same argument, the client can know how long the tokens are good for via API description. What we're talking about is a programmatic hint by the AS to the Client about what the token is good for. One common use is time-limited, and so provisions for that have been baked in so that

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Richer, Justin P.
Scope is a lot closer to authzcontext in concept than authncontext, since OAuth is out of the authn game. -- Justin From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [oauth-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Paul Madsen [paul.mad...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:55 PM

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread William Mills
One use tokens can also expire before they are used.  You have 5 minutes to do this once. From: Torsten Lodderstedt [tors...@lodderstedt.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:26 PM To: Paul Madsen Cc: oauth-boun...@ietf.org; Richer, Justin P.; OAuth WG

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Access Token Response without expires_in

2012-01-17 Thread Torsten Lodderstedt
good point William Mills wmi...@yahoo-inc.com schrieb: One use tokens can also expire before they are used. You have 5 minutes to do this once. _ From: Torsten Lodderstedt [tors...@lodderstedt.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:26 PM To: