IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08.txt WGLC comments

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Wed, 12 October 2011 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6178F21F8BEF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64fMahsHvcYP for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85E721F8BDE for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.67) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:02:12 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.142]) by TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.67]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:02:11 -0700
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08.txt WGLC comments
Thread-Index: AQHMTaLJnWCrafb4ZE+NLLSMK5FwXJU3E+0AgAAXvQCAQRHaAIAAgkWAgACa04D//+FBcIAAeymA//+/OLA=
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:02:11 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C239299@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <20110727131700.23436.11568.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739434986822D@TK5EX14MBXC202.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAC4RtVBx-WrxbXE-DxvEp3EsE3q6oEcrv9XWxteB11AjPMK3Hg@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11289635128@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <1314767698.36186.YahooMailNeo@web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1128DB1DE6E@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <1318350042.89721.YahooMailNeo@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1129072392A@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <4E955C01.40603@gmx.de> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C238C90@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4E95A987.1000203@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E95A987.1000203@gmx.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08.txt WGLC comments
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 12 Oct 2011 18:02:13 -0000

The syntax in HTTPbis is:
    credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / #auth-param ) ]

The syntax in Bearer 09 is:
   credentials = "Bearer" 1*SP ( b64token / #auth-param )

As this conforms to HTTPbis, I don't see a problem.  I think HTTPbis and Bearer are both fine as-is.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 7:52 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Manger, James H; oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08.txt WGLC comments

On 2011-10-12 16:32, Mike Jones wrote:
> Draft 09 allows either b64token or auth-params.  Unless there's a working group consensus that this must change, both syntax options will be supported.
>
> 				-- Mike
> ...

Mike,

that doesn't work. The restriction in HTTPbis is there because it's necessary so a recipient can parse a header field that contains multiple, comma-separated challenges.

If you think that HTTPbis is wrong here please come over to the HTTPbis mailing list and argue your point.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email