[Openid-specs-ab] Offline access discussion

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Tue May 22 19:00:12 UTC 2012

In the Yahoo! meeting, we had some discussions around offline access. The
discussion did not finish there and we did not have much time to discuss in
the IIW to reach the consensus either.

>From what I see from the notes in the issue tracker (
https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/539/ ), the following is my

So Google and AOL approach does not seem too dissimilar.

Both requires explicit user consent for obtaining the refresh token.


   1. In AOL's case, refresh token which is bound to the session is
   returned for 'code' case, while Google does not return it. In AOL's case,
   the client should send refresh token through the back channel to update the
   access token, while in Google's case, prompt=none front channel call should
   be used to get the refreshed access token.
      1. Advantage of AOL's approach is that it allows simpler
      implementation for the proxied clients (e.g., MapQuest-AOL-Google case).
      2. Google states that their approach allows "unified button" for new
      registration and authentication. (Is this also achievable with AOL's
      3. Perhaps Googles approach allows the server to be stateless while
      AOL's approach requires it to be stateful?
   2. AOL uses scope to indicate the offline access request, while Google
   uses a new extension parameter called access_type.
      1. AOL's approach is one less extension variable while Google's
      approach probably is cleaner than putting everything in the scope bucket.

I do not think we have consensus on this issue yet. Please discuss.

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120523/b0bbc493/attachment.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list