Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26
Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Fri, 07 October 2011 09:14 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 B25BA21F8A91 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 02:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 e6Lu4o1OAkop for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 02:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7E321F8AF2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 02:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 02:17:52 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.142]) by TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.159]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 02:17:52 -0700
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26
Thread-Index: Acx+2PHmt3CFeZd3Q9qsd+qVAY1q8gCGXHeAADaHZIAAGpwHEACmef4A
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:17:51 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C22CA77@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C21DD2C@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1129015546C@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <1317621663.4810.YahooMailNeo@web31813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C226298@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C226298@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.32]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C22CA77TK5EX14MBXC284r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:14:44 -0000
Thus far, I believe those who have expressed opinions have been pretty evenly split between 2 and 3 on the scope issue. I’ve seen no support for 1 since I sent my request for opinions. For the error_description issue, I’ve seen support for C, whereas I’ve heard criticisms voiced against A and B, and have heard no support for either of them. In the interest of resolving these issues, I’d appreciate it if others would weigh in soon. Thanks, -- Mike From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 6:55 PM To: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26 As editor, based upon James’ input, I’d like to expand the set of choices for the working group to consider by adding the possibility of using JSON string encodings for scope and error_description where the characters used for the encoding are restricted to the set of 7-bit ASCII characters compatible with the HTTPbis and RFC 2617 parameter syntaxes. 1. Using RFC 5987 encoding for the scope parameter. 2. Continuing to specify no non-ASCII encoding for scope parameter values. 3. Using JSON string encoding for the scope parameter. A. Using RFC 5987 encoding for the error_description parameter. B. Continuing to specify UTF-8 encoding for the error_description parameter. C. Using JSON string encoding for the error_description parameter. As an individual, I’m sympathetic to the argument that RFC 5987 (with “scope*” and language tags etc.) is overkill for OAuth implementations, where neither of the sets of strings is intended to be presented to end-users. Hence, the possible attractiveness of options 3 and C. Thoughts from others? -- Mike From: William Mills [mailto:wmills@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 11:01 PM To: Manger, James H; Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26 I don't like dropping scope from the WWW-Authenticate responses, because my current discovery usage requires scope to be returned so that it can be passed to the auth server if the user is forced to re-authenticate. +1 for "explicitly restrict scope values to some subset of printable ASCII in OAuth2 Core. Not being able to support Unicode in a new protocol is slightly disappointing, but I can live with it." ________________________________ From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com<mailto:James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>> To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>; "oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2011 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26 The best solution is to drop the “scope” field from the “WWW-Authenticate: Bearer ...” response header. “scope” is relevant to an OAuth2-core flow, not to presenting a bearer token. “scope” could make sense in a “WWW-Authenticate: OAuth2 ...” response header as long as other necessary details such as an authorization URI were also provided. Dropping “scope” and “error_description” (as the error should be described in the response body) would eliminate these encoding problems. If the group really wants to keep “scope”, I don’t think RFC 5987 is a good solution. RFC 5987 might have been ok for adding internationalization support to long-standing ASCII-only fields in a world of multiple character sets – but none of that applies here. Having to change the field name from “scope” to “scope*” when you have a non-ASCII value is the biggest flaw. The simplest solution is to explicitly restrict scope values to some subset of printable ASCII in OAuth2 Core. Not being able to support Unicode in a new protocol is slightly disappointing, but I can live with it. My preferred escaping solution would be a JSON string, UTF-8 encoded: json.org<http://json.org>, RFC 4627; value in double-quotes; slash is the escape char; supports Unicode; eg scope="coll\u00E8gues". This is backward-compatible with HTTP’s quoted-string syntax. It is forward-compatible with UTF-8 HTTP headers (if that occurs). JSON is well-supported (and required for other OAuth2 exchanges). [I might suggest json-string to the httpbis group as a global replacement for quoted-string (or at least as a recommendation for new fields).] -- James Manger From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org]<mailto:[mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org]> On Behalf Of Mike Jones Sent: Friday, 30 September 2011 4:53 AM To: oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26 There seems to now be more working group interest in representing non-ASCII characters in scope strings than had previously been in evidence. If we decide to define a standard representation for doing so, using RFC 5987<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5987> (Character Set and Language Encoding for Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Parameters) seems to be the clear choice. I’d be interested in knowing how many working group members are in favor of either: 1. Using RFC 5987 encoding for the scope parameter. 2. Continuing to specify no non-ASCII encoding for scope parameter values. As a related issue, some working group members have objected to specifying UTF-8 encoding of the error_description value, requesting the use of RFC 5987 encoding instead. I’d also be interested in knowing how many working group members are in favor of either: A. Using RFC 5987 encoding for the error_description parameter. B. Continuing to specify UTF-8 encoding for the error_description parameter. (As editor, I would make the observation that if we choose RFC 5987 encoding for either of these parameters, it would be logical to do so for the other one as well.) In the interest of finishing the specification in a way that meets everyone’s needs, -- Mike _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to iss… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Buhake Sindi
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Julian Reschke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Julian Reschke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… John Kemp
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Julian Reschke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Thomson, Martin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Julian Reschke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Julian Reschke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Julian Reschke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to… Julian Reschke