Agree, against the removal of text -----Original Message----- From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lodderstedt, Torsten Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:01 AM To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Partial set of last call comments on OAuth draft 20 from Yaron Goland
>> 1.4.3. Resource Owner Password Credentials: Comment on "(when >> combined with a refresh token)": "This is the first time that refresh >> tokens are mentioned in the spec. And yet there is no explanation of what >> they are. >> I suspect they should anyway be introduced in section 1.4.1 (as >> previously >> noted) and then their use here will make sense. If that isn't >> possible then it would be good to have a forward reference to section >> 1.5 below so the reader has some idea of what's going on." >I removed '(when combined with a refresh token)'. This is actually not true as >there is no assumption that >access tokens are always short-lived or that >refresh tokens will always be issued to native applications using >this grant >type. -1 against removing this text (w/o an suitable replacement) and w/o group consent. The -20 text clearly points out that this combination "... eliminates the need for the client to store the resource owner credentials for future use". The resource owner grant type alone does not justify this statement. It's true that the spec does not explicitly defines the lifetime assumption for access and refresh tokens (which is pity in my opinion). So at least add something like "if the token lifetime is reasonable long enough". regards, Torsten. _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
