xmlgrrl/UMA-Specifications — Issue #47: Explicitly mention "bearer" rather than "artifact" for MTI token type?
Author: xmlgrrl
Created: 2012-02-09 21:15:58+00:00
State: open

Discussed in email thread (http://groups.google.com/group/kantara-initiative-uma-wg/browse_frm/thread/e59373ead388f909):

2) What is the purpose of defining the new token type, "Artifact" (described in Section 1.5)? It is not well-defined in the spec, other than to say that it is an "opaque token string". Why not use the existing OAuth 2 Bearer token type instead of defining a new one?

(See the thread for additional discussion.)

In UMA telecon 2012-02-09 we discussed and resolved the issue:

We have consensus to do this. This should be a relatively small change to the spec, though backwards-incompatible in that the token type value changes to "bearer" in the AM configuration info. We'll also have to normatively reference the bearer token profile spec.