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

Anthony Nadalin tonynad at microsoft.com
Wed Mar 14 14:28:47 UTC 2012


The change does not preclude these being the same physical client

From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:22 AM
To: nov matake
Cc: <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Breaking change in OAuth 2.0 rev. 23

The problem is the normative MUST language. If it were SHOULD, it is less of the problem.

Since it is a MUST, we cannot extend it. That is the problem that I am pointing  out.

=nat via iPhone

On 2012/03/14, at 10:17, nov matake <nov at matake.jp<mailto:nov at matake.jp>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20120314/0a234f32/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list