[Openid-specs-ab] Breaking change in OAuth 2.0 rev. 23

nov matake nov at matake.jp
Wed Mar 14 14:17:27 UTC 2012


This is the only discussion about this change.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08271.html

And this is the response I got in OAuth ML.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08548.html

According to the Eran's reply, I thought extensions (eg. response_type=code token) can overwrite the requirement.

On 2012/03/14, at 22:22, Nat Sakimura wrote:

> 
> 
> =nat via iPhone
> 
> On 2012/03/14, at 7:33, "Richer, Justin P." <jricher at mitre.org> wrote:
> 
>> The way I read it, "code token" is its own type, and it needs to be treated
> 
> My first take was that but the text goes: 
> 
>>> a distributed client with both a confidential
>>> server-based component and a public browser-based component), MUST
>>> register each component separately as a different client
> 
> so looks to me that it does not allow that interpretation... 
> 
>> differently from either "code" or "token", which isn't a change. What the intent of the text is, I believe, is to keep people from using the same client id with "code" as with "token". This would effectively be mixing public and private clients in the most normal use cases, which is the section that it's in, and that's not a good thing. 
>> 
>> I don't think it's actually a breaking change, but I'm less convinced of the utility of normative language here.
>> 
>>  -- Justin
>> 
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>> 
>>> I only noticed now that rev 23 had a breaking change. it seems to
>>> doesn't allow the response_type=code token unless we define another client type such as "hybrid". 
>>> 
>>> This is a breaking change. 
>>> 
>>> I wonder why I did not notice it till now. 
>>> 
>>> See below.
>>> 
>>> From section 2.1of
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23.txt
>>> 
>>> "A client application consisting of multiple components, each with its
>>> own client type (e.g. a distributed client with both a confidential
>>> server-based component and a public browser-based component), MUST
>>> register each component separately as a different client to ensure
>>> proper handling by the authorization server."
>>> 
>>> Discuss. 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>>> @_nat_en
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120314/34b967f4/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list