I remain unconvinced that at this point MTI is going to be useful. I appreciate that some people want MAC, I could not support it being MTI.
The below text with Bearer as MTI the only would be acceptable, if we need a MTI token handler. (I tend to think of token type, as bearer token type JWT/SAML etc, and this issue is more on the handling of classes of tokens) John Bradley On 2011-12-04, at 6:37 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Stephen says: >> On 12/02/2011 03:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> Maybe what would work best is some text that suggests what I say >>> above: that toolkits intended for use in implementing OAuth services >>> in general... implement [X and/or Y], and that code written for a >>> specific environment implement what makes sense for that environment. >>> It seems to me that to require any particular implementation in the >>> latter case is arbitrary and counter-productive, and doesn't help >>> anything interoperate. Whereas general-purpose toolkits that >>> implement everything DO help interop. >> >> That'd work just fine for me. > > OK, so here's what I suggest... I propose adding a new section 7.2, thus: > > ----------------------------------- > 7.2 Access Token Implementation Considerations > > Access token types have to be mutually understood among the > authorization server, the resource server, and the client -- the > access token issues the token, the resource server validates it, and > the client is required to understand the type, as noted in section > 7.1, above. Because of that, interoperability of program code > developed separately depends upon the token types that are supported > in the code. > > Toolkits that are intended for general use (for building other clients > and/or servers), therefore, SHOULD implement as many token types as > practical, to ensure that programs developed with those toolkits are > able to use the token types they need. In particular, all general-use > toolkits MUST implement bearer tokens [...ref...] and MAC tokens > [...ref...]. > > Purpose-built code, built without such toolkits, has somewhat more > flexibility, as its developers know the specific environment they're > developing for. There's clearly little point to including code to > support a particular token type when it's known in advance that the > type in question will never be used in the intended deployment. > Developers of purpose-built code are encouraged to consider future > extensions and to plan ahead for changes in circumstances, and might > still want to include support for multiple token types. That said, > the choice of token-type support for such purpose-built code is left > to the developers and their specific requirements. > ----------------------------------- > > I think that expresses a reasonable compromise that might actually be > followed and might actually do some good. Comments? Can we go with > this and close this issue? (And, sorry, I've been a Bad Chair, and > haven't put this in the tracker.) > > Barry > _______________________________________________ > 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
