Re: [OAUTH-WG] oauth-bearer and rfc 2617/httpbis authentication framework

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-07-23 00:33, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to check that some recent minor changes to this
> document [1] don't cause technical or process-grief.
>
> The version [2] of the oauth bearer draft that underwent
> IETF LC and IESG evaluation had a normative dependency
> on the httpbis wg's authentication framework. [3]
>
> After resolving IESG discuss positions the authors and
> wg chairs felt that it would be better to replace the
> normative reference to the httpbis wg draft [3] with one
> to RFC 2617 [4] so that the OAuth drafts wouldn't be held
> in the RFC editor queue waiting on the httpbis wg to get
> done.
>
> I believe there is no impact on interop resulting from
> this change but there has been some disagreement about
> making it and how it was made. After some offlist discussion
> I think we now have an RFC editor note [5] that means that
> the current scheme of referring to RFC 2617 is ok.
> ...

Quoting:

> NEW:
>
>    The "Authorization" header for this scheme follows the usage
>    of the Basic scheme [RFC2617]. Note that, as with Basic, this
>    is compatible with the the general authentication framework
>    being developed for HTTP 1.1 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p7-auth], though
>    does not follow the preferred practice outlined therein in
>    order to reflect existing deployments. The syntax for Bearer
>    credentials is as follows:

That helps, but it still hides the fact that the syntax is not 
compatible with the RFC 2617 framework.

Also, s/header/header field/

Proposal:

"The syntax of the "Authorization" header field for this scheme follows 
the usage of the Basic scheme defined in Section 2 of [RFC2617]. Note 
that, as with Basic, it does not conform to the generic syntax defined 
in Section 1.2 of [RFC2617], but that it is compatible with the the 
general authentication framework being developed for HTTP 1.1 
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p7-auth], although it does not follow the preferred 
practice outlined therein in order to reflect existing deployments.

The syntax for Bearer credentials is as follows: ..."

Best regards, Julian