Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token Specification Draft -10

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 20 October 2011 08:11 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 5B27C21F8573 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 LyZpFrBuIbM8 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F3CD21F8586 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2011 08:10:55 -0000
Received: from p5DCC3E45.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.62.69] by mail.gmx.net (mp025) with SMTP; 20 Oct 2011 10:10:55 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18nVWZV+pMnYewlijXbV9fzZnGnTL7/DWpnhGTulx dIh6ahz3Wyvzxh
Message-ID: <4E9FD785.1010708@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:10:45 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C24B1CA@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4E9FC9FA.8030001@gmx.de> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C24CAE6@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4E9FCFA4.7050706@gmx.de> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C24CBB6@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4E9FD642.9070100@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E9FD642.9070100@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token Specification Draft -10
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:11:01 -0000

On 2011-10-20 10:05, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-10-20 09:41, Mike Jones wrote:
>> Your proposed wording for 2.4 misses the point: \ MUST NOT occur at
>> all in the input string. No quoting may occur.
>  > ...
>
> No, it doesn't miss the point.
>
> You need to tell implementers whether they can use a quoted-string
> processor. Those processors will accept all the values you want to
> support, plus values that contain "\c" (representing "c"). Is this ok,
> or are recipients supposed to reject these values?
>
> Furthermore, it's not clear what recipients are supposed to do with
> values that are not quoted, for instance for scope. The ABNF makes them
> illegal, but I promise you that many recipients will accept them
> nevertheless (unless you manage them to become draconian using a very
> good test suite).
>
> See <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc/httpauth/#simplebasictok> for a test
> case checking this for the realm parameter. It's already bad for many
> existing headers, please let's do things right with new ones.
>
> Best regards, Julian

...finally, the syntax for the WWW-Authenticate header field is defined 
by HTTPbis, not the OAuth spec. Recipients need to process the header 
field using a generic parser, and only after doing so can delegate to an 
OAuth-specific component for interpretation of the OAuth-specific 
semantics. Translation: a recipient that supports multiple 
authentication schemes is unlikely to implement an OAuth-specific 
*parser* for the header field.

Best regards, Julian