You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
according to discussion in #1, there is currently no support in solid auth clients for multiple realms/protection spaces per origin. the current POP token construction implies that the same token can be used in any protection space at an origin.
addressing this can be done entirely on the client side today, by paying attention to the realm parameter of the WWW-Authenticate response header in a 401, and taking care to differentiate and track by realm if an access token is rejected for some reason (for example, if it was revoked in one protection space).
at the very least, multiple realms per origin should not be prohibited, and documentation should acknowledge that it is a valid case in HTTP and clients should take care.
consider the discussion beginning at #1 (comment) to be incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
according to discussion in #1, there is currently no support in solid auth clients for multiple realms/protection spaces per origin. the current POP token construction implies that the same token can be used in any protection space at an origin.
addressing this can be done entirely on the client side today, by paying attention to the
realm
parameter of theWWW-Authenticate
response header in a401
, and taking care to differentiate and track byrealm
if an access token is rejected for some reason (for example, if it was revoked in one protection space).it would also be handy if access tokens for different protection spaces had to be different, for example by doing #3 or by obtaining an access token from an authorization server instead of making one in the client.
at the very least, multiple realms per origin should not be prohibited, and documentation should acknowledge that it is a valid case in HTTP and clients should take care.
consider the discussion beginning at #1 (comment) to be incorporated by reference as though fully set forth in this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: