[Openid-specs-ab] Connect Flows and Userinfo Endpoint

[Breno de Medeiros]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 08:06, Nat <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:

> That is the whole point I and Hideki was making.
>
> I assumed that what David is pointing out is that the protected resource
> being a PoCo endpoint directly or existing OAuth endpoint.
>

Nat, could you be more explicit. I am not sure what point you and Hideki
were making.

As for the protected resource being an existing OAuth endpoint, I think that
is an orthogonal issue to a large extent.


>
> =nat via iPhone
>
> On 2011/01/08, at 0:24, John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:
>
> One of the motivating factors of the JWT is that it can be a oAuth access
> token.
>
> It seems simpler to include claims like userID in the signed access token,
>  rather than having to include a separate access token inside.
> The access token is for the user info endpoint in ether case.
>
> Accessing public info at the user-info endpoint without a token should not
> be impacted by the access token format.  Am I missing something?
>
> If you get the access token through some other flow there is no particular
> issue with it being a JWT or some other format as long as the protected
> resource understands it.
>
> Or are you talking about the protected resource being a PoCo endpoint
> directly?
>
> John B.
>
>
> On 2011-01-07, at 6:39 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
> Hmmm. That is interesting. So, it means that I should not optimize for the
> OpenID/OAuth use cases. The two cases below are different use cases than the
> OpenID/OAuth protected resource access. Is there any other use cases that
> people have in mind?
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:43 PM, David Recordon < <dr at fb.com>dr at fb.com>wrote:
>
>>  I see two cases which may not work here:
>>
>>    1. you're requesting public data in which case just a userid is
>>    required and no access token or JWT
>>
>> For accessing public data, one can always ask without a token.
> (I actually like the <http://graph.facebook.com/username>
> graph.facebook.com/username style access.)
> Using JWT received as a token to access restricted content does not
>  prevent this behavior.
> Am I missing something? (In the older version of the connect proposal, it
> was returning such URL instead of opaque user_id. That was good.) So this
> does not seem to be a blocking factor.
>
>
>
>
>>    1. you got the access token via a non-OpenID OAuth 2.0 flow. I can
>>    imagine a PoCo endpoint doubling as the OpenID user info API.
>>
>> This probably is more relevant.
>
> Then the question would gets to the point Hideki pointed out:
> why cannot we make "signed" as we call now the "access_token" with
> token_type=signed_openid?
> It will save us from defining an OAuth extension variable called "signed"
> and more OAuth2.0 compliant.
>
> (As a side issue: I started to feel that we probably do not need "code" in
> the OAuth2.0 spec., but just "access_token" with type="authz_code". "code"
> is just another type of access_token which can only be used once and at the
> authz endpoint.)
>
>
>
>>
>>   On 1/6/11 11:40 PM, "Nat Sakimura" < <sakimura at gmail.com>
>> sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi guys.
>>
>>  Do you have objection to passing the entire JWT ("signed") instead of
>> access_token and user_id extracted to the UserInfo endpoint?
>> That seems to be a lot simpler.
>>
>>  =nat
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> <http://www.sakimura.org/en/>http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> <http://twitter.com/_nat_en>http://twitter.com/_nat_en
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> <Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>


-- 
--Breno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20110107/23007752/attachment.html>