Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26

["Manger, James H" <[e-mail]>]

The best solution is to drop the "scope" field from the "WWW-Authenticate: Bearer ..." response header. "scope" is relevant to an OAuth2-core flow, not to presenting a bearer token. "scope" could make sense in a "WWW-Authenticate: OAuth2 ..." response header as long as other necessary details such as an authorization URI were also provided. Dropping "scope" and "error_description" (as the error should be described in the response body) would eliminate these encoding problems.


If the group really wants to keep "scope", I don't think RFC 5987 is a good solution. RFC 5987 might have been ok for adding internationalization support to long-standing ASCII-only fields in a world of multiple character sets - but none of that applies here. Having to change the field name from "scope" to "scope*" when you have a non-ASCII value is the biggest flaw.

The simplest solution is to explicitly restrict scope values to some subset of printable ASCII in OAuth2 Core. Not being able to support Unicode in a new protocol is slightly disappointing, but I can live with it.

My preferred escaping solution would be a JSON string, UTF-8 encoded: json.org, RFC 4627; value in double-quotes; slash is the escape char; supports Unicode; eg scope="coll\u00E8gues". This is backward-compatible with HTTP's quoted-string syntax. It is forward-compatible with UTF-8 HTTP headers (if that occurs). JSON is well-supported (and required for other OAuth2 exchanges). [I might suggest json-string to the httpbis group as a global replacement for quoted-string (or at least as a recommendation for new fields).]

--
James Manger

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Friday, 30 September 2011 4:53 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26

There seems to now be more working group interest in representing non-ASCII characters in scope strings than had previously been in evidence.  If we decide to define a standard representation for doing so, using RFC 5987<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5987> (Character Set and Language Encoding for Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Parameters) seems to be the clear choice.  I'd be interested in knowing how many working group members are in favor of either:

1.  Using RFC 5987 encoding for the scope parameter.
2.  Continuing to specify no non-ASCII encoding for scope parameter values.

As a related issue, some working group members have objected to specifying UTF-8 encoding of the error_description value, requesting the use of RFC 5987 encoding instead.  I'd also be interested in knowing how many working group members are in favor of either:

A.  Using RFC 5987 encoding for the error_description parameter.
B.  Continuing to specify UTF-8 encoding for the error_description parameter.

(As editor, I would make the observation that if we choose RFC 5987 encoding for either of these parameters, it would be logical to do so for the other one as well.)

In the interest of finishing the specification in a way that meets everyone's needs,
                                                            -- Mike