Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re: Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions

Based on use cases I'm seeing, believe it's important to allow the use of URIs as client_id values (which means allowing ":" in the client_id string).  I'm OK with us either specifying a specific encoding when using them in Basic or simply saying that "When client_ids are used with HTTP Basic that contain characters such as ":" not allowed in HTTP Basic usernames, then the participants will need to agree upon a method of encoding the client_id for use with HTTP Basic.

                                                            -- Mike

From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George Fletcher
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:48 AM
To: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re: Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions

+1 for a simple encoding and allowing ':' in the client_id

On 6/13/12 6:53 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 14.06.2012 06:40, John Bradley wrote:

That would probably work as well.  That is why I am not particularly
concerned about excluding the :

We originally used the URI itself,  mostly for convenience of
debugging,  but there are other potential options.

The authorization server needs to compare the client_id and the
redirect uri. But it could compare the hash with not much more work.
Also a sha256 hash is probably longer than the uri it is hashing.

I am not super concerned with being able to have : in the client_id

John B.

If I'm following all these threads correctly the only explicit problem with URI in client_id is HTTP username field being : terminated.
As such it does not have to be a hash per-se, just an encoding that removes ":" and other reserved characters from the on-wire form *when sent via HTTP*.

AYJ

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth