Whoa, I think it¹s 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 ³openid² and ³calendar² scope. Why would the OP want to return 2 tokens?
Allen On 5/19/10 5:27 PM, "Dirk Balfanz" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let's say I'm coolcalendar.com <http://coolcalendar.com> , 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 <http://coolcalendar.com> . > > 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. > > 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. >
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
