Except that these are about not using the Token Endpoint at all, whereas the current proposal is about the Token Endpoint not returning an access_token field in the JSON.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > The response_type “none” is already used in practice, which returns no > access token. It was accepted by the designated experts and registered in > the IANA OAuth Authorization Endpoint Response Types registry at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xml#endpoint. > The registered “id_token” response type also returns no access token. > > > > So I think the question of whether response types that result in no access > token being returned are acceptable within OAuth 2.0 is already settled, as > a practical matter. Lots of OAuth implementations are already using such > response types. > > > > -- Mike > > > > *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Phil Hunt > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:09 AM > *To:* Nat Sakimura > *Cc:* <oauth@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for > draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-05.txt > > > > Yes. This is why it has to be discussed in the IETF. > > > > Phil > > > > @independentid > > www.independentid.com > > phil.h...@oracle.com > > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Reading back the RFC6749, I am not sure if there is a good way of > suppressing access token from the response and still be OAuth. It will > break whole bunch of implicit definitions like: > > > > authorization server > The server issuing access tokens to the client after successfully > authenticating the resource owner and obtaining authorization. > > > > After all, OAuth is all about issuing access tokens. > > > > Also, I take back my statement on the grant type in my previous mail. > > > > The definition of grant and grant_type are respectively: > > > > grant > > credential representing the resource owner's authorization > > > > grant_type > > (string representing the) type of grant sent to the token endpoint to > obtain the access token > > > > Thus, the grant sent to the token endpoint in this case is still 'code'. > > > > Response type on the other hand is not so well defined in RFC6749, but it > seems it is representing what is to be returned from the authorization > endpoint. To express what is to be returned from token endpoint, perhaps > defining a new parameter to the token endpoint, which is a parallel to the > response_type to the Authorization Endpoint seems to be a more symmetric > way, though I am not sure at all if that is going to be OAuth any more. One > straw-man is to define a new parameter called response_type to the token > endpoint such as: > > > > response_type > > OPTIONAL. A string representing what is to be returned from the token > endpoint. > > > > Then define the behavior of the endpoint according to the values as the > parallel to the multi-response type spec. > > http://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0.html > > > > Nat > > > > > > > > > > 2014-07-23 7:21 GMT-04:00 Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com>: > > The draft is very clear. > > Phil > > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 0:46, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The new grant type that I was talking about was > > "authorization_code_but_do_not_return_access_nor_refresh_token", so to > speak. > > It does not return anything per se, but an extension can define something > on top of it. > > > > Then, OIDC can define a binding to it so that the binding only returns ID > Token. > > This binding work should be done in OIDF. Should there be such a grant > type, > > it will be an extremely short spec. > > > > At the same time, if any other specification wanted to define > > other type of tokens and have it returned from the token endpoint, > > it can also use this grant type. > > > > If what you want is to define a new grant type that returns ID Token only, > > then, I am with Justin. Since "other response than ID Token" is only > > theoretical, this is a more plausible way forward, I suppose. > > > > Nat > > > > 2014-07-22 14:30 GMT-04:00 Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu>: > > So the draft would literally turn into: > > "The a4c response type and grant type return an id_token from the token > endpoint with no access token. All parameters and values are defined in > OIDC." > > Seems like the perfect mini extension draft for OIDF to do. > > --Justin > > /sent from my phone/ > > > On Jul 22, 2014 10:29 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ > @_nat_en > > > > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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
