On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> The authorization server can issue an access token with any expiration but
> should not issue expiration
> later than that of the assertion. But still, there is nothing to prevent that.
Wait, why shouldn't the authorization server issue
Thanks for the clarity Eran and I understand.
-Original Message-
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 1:57 PM
To: Foiles, Doug; OAuth WG
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners (editorial)
> -Original Mess
> -Original Message-
> From: Foiles, Doug [mailto:doug_foi...@intuit.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 1:07 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG
> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners
> (editorial)
>
> Thanks for addressing my ques
TH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners (editorial)
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Foiles, Doug
> Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 8:41 AM
> To: OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resou
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Foiles, Doug
> Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 8:41 AM
> To: OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners
> (editorial)
>
> I wanted
flow" would
work where the credential is something different than the username and
password.
Thanks.
Doug
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Chuck Mortimore
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:46 PM
To: Keenan, Bill; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OA
sday, April 27, 2010 9:06 AM
To: Torsten Lodderstedt; Brian Eaton
Cc: Foiles, Doug; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners
(editorial)
Same here - we don't intend to issue refresh tokens for either of these
flows, and we'll only be accep
2010 9:06 AM
To: Torsten Lodderstedt; Brian Eaton
Cc: Foiles, Doug; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners
(editorial)
Same here - we don't intend to issue refresh tokens for either of these
flows, and we'll only be accepting 1 time use
Cc: Chuck Mortimore; Foiles, Doug; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners (editorial)
returning access token would suffice in this flow, from my point of
view.
regards,
Torsten.
Am 27.04.2010 um 08:33 schrieb Brian Eaton :
> From my perspective, the main thin
OAuth specific flow.
Thanks.
Doug
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of
Eve Maler
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 7:21 AM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners
(editorial)
Regarding the second comment I made below: I real
tside the OAuth specific flow.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Doug
>
>
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Eve Maler
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 7:21 AM
> To: OAuth WG
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners (editorial
the
OAuth specific flow.
Thanks.
Doug
*From:* oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On
Behalf Of *Eve Maler
*Sent:* Friday, April 23, 2010 7:21 AM
*To:* OAuth WG
*Subject:* [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners
(editorial)
Rega
alf a
> resource owner that is not themselves … it then seems the resource owner
> must provide some level of consent outside the OAuth specific flow.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Doug
>
>
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eve
> M
er
must provide some level of consent outside the OAuth specific flow.
Thanks.
Doug
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eve
Maler
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 7:21 AM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners (editorial)
Regar
...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eve
Maler
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 7:21 AM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Autonomous clients and resource owners (editorial)
Regarding the second comment I made below: I realized last night that Sections
3.7.1 and 3.7.2 get this more
Regarding the second comment I made below: I realized last night that Sections
3.7.1 and 3.7.2 get this more correct, by saying that an autonomous client
represents a "separate resource owner". So Section 2.2 definitely needs a
slight change, from:
"...and autonomous flows where the client is a
16 matches
Mail list logo