<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Building identity on top of OAuth 2.0?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Whoa, I think it’s premature to say that Yahoo supports OpenID Connect, but I would imagine that only a single Access Token would be returned to coolcalendar.com – the Access Token would presumably be good for both “openid” and “calendar” scope. Why would the OP want to return 2 tokens?<BR>
<BR>
Allen<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 5/19/10 5:27 PM, "Dirk Balfanz" <<a href="balfanz@google.com">balfanz@google.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
Let's say I'm coolcalendar.com <<a href="http://coolcalendar.com">http://coolcalendar.com</a>> , and I want to "connect" one of my user's accounts to his Yahoo! account. I don't want to roll my own auth system, so I'm happy to see that Yahoo! supports OpenID Connect. To connect, I'll send the user over to Yahoo! with scope=openid%20yahoo-calendar. What I get back, in your proposal, is two different kinds of "tokens": the access token that my servers use to access Yahoo! and something I'll call "openid connect token" (which in your proposal comprises a few different parameters - user id, timestamp, signature, etc.) that browsers use (in form of a cookie) to access my own servers at coolcalendar.com <<a href="http://coolcalendar.com">http://coolcalendar.com</a>> . <BR>
<BR>
Why do those two tokens look different? They serve the same purpose - authenticating access from a client to a server, so they should look the same. <BR>
<BR>
Why should Yahoo! run different code to authenticate requests coming from my server than the code I'm running on my servers to authenticate requests coming from browsers - we have to solve the same task, so we should run the same code. It's simpler. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>