OpenID/Oauth hybrid [was Re: specs Digest, Vol 27, Issue 3]

Allen Tom atom at
Fri Nov 14 01:42:53 UTC 2008

In the registered consumer case, why not just do:



In the unregistered consumer case, the OpenID association request could 
be extended to hand out Consumer keys, which are then used as the 
association handle. The scopes and realm could be passed to the 
association request as well.


Dirk Balfanz wrote:
> Yes, I can see how that would happen.
> So how about for OPs who tie scope to Consumer Keys, their 
> openid.oauth.scope syntax would look something like this:
> openid.oauth.scope=consumer_key:scope1,scope2,scope3
> Or, if there is a one-to-one mapping from consumer_key to scope, 
> simply like this:
> openid.oauth.scope=consumer_key
> Dirk.
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Darren Bounds <darren at 
> <mailto:darren at>> wrote:
>     Certainly but the consumer context you display to the user is
>     falsely represented based solely on the realm in that circumstance.
>     Sent from a mobile device.
>     On Nov 13, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz at
>     <mailto:balfanz at>> wrote:
>>     On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Allen Tom <atom at
>>     <mailto:atom at>> wrote:
>>         Dirk Balfanz wrote:
>>             I don't think this is true - I believe the realm is
>>             sufficient. Let me try and explain. (We'll assume
>>             registered consumers.) On the approval page, we need to
>>             identify the consumer. In its current form, the spec
>>             basically assumes that you're gonna use the realm for that.
>>         You're assuming that a realm has only one CK. A site might
>>         have multiple consumer keys, with different scopes attached
>>         to them...
>>     Actually, I wasn't assuming that. At access token request time,
>>     you follow the map from consumer-key to realm (that's the
>>     direction you can do, right)? If that's a many-to-one map then
>>     this will give you one realm. Then you check whether that's the
>>     realm that the request token was issued to.
>>     The one thing you're losing is that you can't, at approval time,
>>     figure out whether that realm is requesting a scope that they
>>     have access to. So a realm could ask for a certain scope in their
>>     auth request, the user approves it, and then at
>>     access-token-request time, you won't issue the token b/c they're
>>     using a CK that doesn't have enough privileges. It's still
>>     secure, but gives you a crappy user experience if the consumer
>>     mixes up their CKs.
>>     Wait - I think I have an idea: what if the Yahoo-specific way of
>>     requesting the scope is to include the CK into the
>>     openid.oauth.scope parameter? That way, you can at approval time
>>     make sure that they are requesting a scope that they are actually
>>     authorized to pick up. This wouldn't be for security purposes -
>>     just as a way to make sure the user experience isn't surprising.
>>     Dirk.
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     specs mailing list
>>     specs at <mailto:specs at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the specs mailing list