What about just defining a new grant type in this WG?
2014-07-22 12:56 GMT-04:00 Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com>: > That would be nice. However oidc still needs the new grant type in order > to implement the same flow. > > Phil > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:35, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 to Justin. > > > 2014-07-22 9:54 GMT-04:00 Richer, Justin P. <jric...@mitre.org>: > >> Errors like these make it clear to me that it would make much more sense >> to develop this document in the OpenID Foundation. It should be something >> that directly references OpenID Connect Core for all of these terms instead >> of redefining them. It's doing authentication, which is fundamentally what >> OpenID Connect does on top of OAuth, and I don't see a good argument for >> doing this work in this working group. >> >> -- Justin >> >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Thanks for your review, Thomas. The “prompt=consent” definition being >>> missing is an editorial error. It should be: >>> >>> >>> >>> consent >>> >>> The Authorization Server SHOULD prompt the End-User for consent before >>> returning information to the Client. If it cannot obtain consent, it MUST >>> return an error, typically consent_required. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’ll plan to add it in the next draft. >>> >> >> It looks like the consent_required error needs to be defined too, and >> you might have forgotten to also import account_selection_required from >> OpenID Connect. >> >> >>> >>> >>> I agree that there’s no difference between a response with multiple >>> “amr” values that includes “mfa” and one that doesn’t. Unless a clear use >>> case for why “mfa” is needed can be identified, we can delete it in the >>> next draft. >>> >> >> Thanks. >> >> How about "pwd" then? I fully understand that I should return "pwd" if >> the user authenticated using a password, but what "the service if a client >> secret is used" means in the definition for the "pwd" value? >> >> (Nota: I know you're at IETF-90, I'm ready to wait 'til you come back >> ;-) ) >> >> -- >> Thomas Broyer >> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ > @_nat_en > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) Chairman, OpenID Foundation http://nat.sakimura.org/ @_nat_en
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
