[Openid-specs-ab] proposed POST response type for OAuth/Connect

Mike Jones Michael.Jones at microsoft.com
Thu Oct 17 18:37:55 UTC 2013


Thanks, Brian.  This is really useful.  I suspect I'll be using some of your text in my write-up. :)

I just spent some time on the phone with Breno discussing this and he agreed that defining a POST response at this point is reasonable.  When talking about possible ways of specifying the POST response behavior, he stated the principle that when a behavioral change is being requested, that this should be done so dynamically, rather than via registration.  That way, particular clients can be updated to use this behavior without requiring a new client registration.  (He likes using registration to specify behavioral restrictions, however, such as requiring particular signing/encryption algorithms, etc.)

He said that the way that he'd do it is to include a "transport=POST" parameter in the authorization request.  So that's what I'll write up.  We could later than define "transport=postMessage", "transport=CORS", etc. if we decide to do so.

As an aside, Breno also said that the reason that he thinks Session Management isn't yet ready to be final, is that he'd like us to explore the option of using a CORS transport, rather than postMessage within Session Management.  I'll leave it to Breno to say more about this.

                                                                Thanks all,
                                                                -- Mike

From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Brian Campbell
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:56 AM
To: <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] proposed POST response type for OAuth/Connect

As discussed during today's call [1], attached is the pseudo-standard document I wrote up earlier this year describing an HTTP POST response type (effectively a POST binding) for OAuth/OIDC.
I know everyone has a lot of docs to read right now but this one is *very* short and has a good example.
We've found this approach to work well in practice and be easy to implement.
It can be done as a straight extension, as illustrated with this doc, or could incorporated into core connect.

As John mentioned, the main drawback of this approach is proliferation of the Response Types registry. Which is kind of ugly but something that no one will care much about once it's done. It's also more of a consequence of the response type constructs put forth by OAuth than it is with this particular extension.
Thanks,
Brian

[1] http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/Week-of-Mon-20131014/004062.html






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20131017/01f982ce/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list