Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The

Martin Rex <> Wed, 25 January 2012 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C76C21F8444; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:48:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.144
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WEHkD5qixb4c; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651A021F8319; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (26) with ESMTP id q0P3mnCp016880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:48:54 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <>
Message-Id: <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:48:48 +0100
In-Reply-To: <> from "Bjoern Hoehrmann" at Jan 25, 12 03:14:26 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SAP: out
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:27:14 -0800
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:48:57 -0000

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Mike Jones wrote:
> >Thanks for asking, Martin.  That's effectively what the spec does
> >already.  It restricts the input values of these parameters to be quoted
>                   the HTTP specification does not give you an interface
> that allows you to tell `x` and `"x"` apart in this particular case. If
> the draft said "When using WWW-Authenticate: Bearer ... then the header
> name must be written `wWw-authenTICate`, same problem. HTTP says case
> does not matter, and if another specification says "Yes, it does" then
> it is overriding the underlying specification, to some degree anyway.

Of course, what oaep-bearer could _not_ "define to not exist"
(no matter how much anyone (group) might desire this), is those
transformations, and their complexity, that are permitted on HTTP
that headerfield, e.g. through "middle-boxes", such as client-side
HTTP proxies or server-side reverse-proxies between the original
creator and the final consumer, as well as permitted side-effects
of other application components sharing the same client (like a browser).