[OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`

Breno <breno.demedeiros@gmail.com> Wed, 13 October 2010 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <breno.demedeiros@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678AD3A69FB for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0YgSyIfYKbW for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA373A6A0B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6so2440208ywa.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=NoyHgn4hA2l4EL9wrM5noMklHWlfppCJjlQ/tD6ILGs=; b=NWL9jM4maM2DsLecGL5dY9WO6CkKwi+B4I5DkT7dr9qVi6JjA6hZmJ92JffWLc2Pe1 qsJLOaN8T1EYg0iEZQ3gdrGDbZPVYM2YFWtBLHo/4N1Q2aKq4QysNown+GLi0p7bC8yK 7ffZNY5TZdbOnJYPLJZXzKOARA0RLFClh20E0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=GXalrdyD/u5O18ZkGbsULKG8Kde+tSb9i371Qw8G20KPLFT8H07+uhxqHCK8WM2n2s k5sSW4CWIYXIo7GpeQNsuy91qQFxDqdVPm0A0yhPCLIO29WQU65Gt2dxlxNB1U5ljtal 3aje7qXz3zae8hevvqISIKLjdp0pvLhLsSsro=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.215.71 with SMTP id hd7mr4694825icb.505.1286994688447; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.154.213 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:31:28 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikO0oqudUchUnpW0vSsXe0k6QKkJpxjFUU+b413@mail.gmail.com>
From: Breno <breno.demedeiros@gmail.com>
To: oauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Request sent to http: instead of https:`
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:30:14 -0000

Suppose server A documents that their endpoint X is at
https://server.example.com/x; there's no service at the corresponding
http location for security reasons.

Client developer fatfingers URL as http://server.example.com/x

What is the correct response? I understand that this is out of scope
for the spec, but maybe there's agreement on some guidance?

One thing one shouldn't do is serve a 302 here; it would allow
defective clients to remain unpatched.

My preference is to simply return a bare 403 or 404 here -- after all
the endpoint does not exist (404) or if one uses the convention that
resources at http/https are usually identical, then http is a
non-authorized method to access the resource (403).

Thoughts?

-- 
Breno de Medeiros