Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies?
Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Mon, 02 January 2012 10:00 UTC
Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
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 7466D21F8EED for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:00:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 J0HaQD3s-r56 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:00:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtprelay02.ispgateway.de (smtprelay02.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FCD21F8EEB for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:00:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [77.6.189.11] (helo=[192.168.1.37]) by smtprelay02.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1Rheh8-0002OM-Hx; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:00:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4F018048.1020900@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:00:40 +0100
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
References: <301AF9A4-395C-4B5A-8610-CD86BEE1401A@mnot.net> <abe2950b95b27818e9e6ebddc99a7b7e@treenet.co.nz> <4EFE7E22.9010200@treenet.co.nz> <4F014DF3.9030105@alcatel-lucent.com> <4F016837.3040904@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <4F016837.3040904@treenet.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Df-Sender: dG9yc3RlbkBsb2RkZXJzdGVkdC1vbmxpbmUuZGU=
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for proxies?
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: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:00:50 -0000
Hi, >>> >> Amos, >> >> I believe that the draft addresses the replay matters by specifying >> the validity time field. Do you see a problem with that? > > I did not see any such validity time field in the HTTP mechanisms. > You mean the validity period of the token itself? that would be > irrelevant as the case I am raising is for software which does not > support Bearer specs. > > Even if the software is not aware of the bearer spec, a token that becomes invalid after a certain time span cannot sucessfully be replayed any longer. general note: I do not understand why caching proxies should impose a problem in case TLS is used (end2end). Could you please explain? regards, Torsten.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Amos Jeffries
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Amos Jeffries
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Amos Jeffries
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Amos Jeffries
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Amos Jeffries
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Bearer authentication - for … Amos Jeffries