Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Digest, Vol 111, Issue 28
Stacey Maes <samaes819@gmail.com> Tue, 23 January 2018 21:29 UTC
Return-Path: <samaes819@gmail.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 9F63012D835 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:29:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LY7gk4a7HQyD for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:29:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x230.google.com (mail-yb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B18012D833 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:29:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id i12so750297ybj.7 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:29:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+qgWFf41E5Fn79HyKQfOie2NJwVvg7PPGMcNKt4uk4A=; b=Yc9ZGFHou29jai+w6l3xzAi38sXyaMc80MOJn2sGe2ZSLUG/eDzFNTq+LB9H+H/fNR iTRX9SPDTmdCEq8YFuoufwCVNYVveV5EBUtCWNw6WuZz+k4Njv0a2RktmmOw/p/KY3Dd rXsSdzmaYvEibUugsV/HiNYwFwhh341HKAA2i0Gnug0Th6EuXMrKKZIFTspsH2/K0o/P +VTAn+Ddpd/hANj0KwhIUzukH9CKrMhs4vIpBYKsn7jCFGR6AU1mVb3JlD66Z7pJl5sl WWV/9ANKm8jRh84rh6pll1KlLoOqOssRhmMeiHWTYrrxq5gdUfsvmPM4fkWuj+fUr8Fb g3eg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=+qgWFf41E5Fn79HyKQfOie2NJwVvg7PPGMcNKt4uk4A=; b=Cbynbt8dkckKnIYnajegCHK7ZMYOZkif6WQgmAKwpJXvheLUl8KdwOsExBgMke/haA ib6IOkUPKnu1Ge7sN/LrW7XzJmViPj3fY7GWk09J1H9zD5vXH5btMU2ImRknyvmRROZE 29FCot/gmZO/SHPvHQ/F3GRrKWjeBk5JcrniaJfRgbCuDKRFr1l3mcsmNerVyfBRyN1b Y7cANLBMvjSO3rdU9Ybl8peeMXO9xvouSjG7TY5BuBuoFd3AS+D/Uzf2BEjad3FvkeX8 ZRUET1x05WPdDYUHzTkiHZKFAiEb99D9GUQu0I46y2XcGfBxChxctVnFQQT9YZ8pK5Ax Peyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcsNt3vhUbpqk/877QituULKIUDKHYEOX3nSnjDg5rlmubEf/VW 5xAkw3bGdNR5xNDzEeFCrqdfDGt6jRjlOBfLoLc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227SIBvoD2P/uQQ0gx1ZiiXC00yTGmfRgP7fSkBQjxBEcwylroQTvR5VNHbi7KGDtpg+bM+7R37mSXJLaaDfdC4=
X-Received: by 10.37.95.15 with SMTP id t15mr3694411ybb.453.1516742980264; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:29:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.63.3 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:29:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.63.3 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:29:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANEhPwLK7_e6JHKLpa9jAah7FGZXxwKzMwavQZb4gyedUqL=pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.75.1516737610.10973.oauth@ietf.org> <CANEhPwLK7_e6JHKLpa9jAah7FGZXxwKzMwavQZb4gyedUqL=pg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stacey Maes <samaes819@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:29:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CANEhPwJrjWKLXAQi4_ofAsqjV3T1M9MgVOpC97g9Z-KNntKJZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: oauth@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082696f88de65a0563783ec0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/BqFGwx5tg8sgUOUXlwfDuvNhI6M>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Digest, Vol 111, Issue 28
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:29:44 -0000
Help On Jan 23, 2018 1:01 PM, <oauth-request@ietf.org> wrote: Send OAuth mailing list submissions to oauth@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to oauth-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at oauth-owner@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of OAuth digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) (Adam Roach) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:41:54 -0800 From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-discovery@ietf.org, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net, oauth@ietf.org Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Message-ID: <151667531481.29516.15285531314696206411.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-08: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to everyone who worked on this specification. I think it's well-written, clear, and useful. I fully endorse publication, and intend to ballot "yes" once we come to an agreement on the issue I describe below. The problem I'm running into is the URL synthesis rules described in section 3.1 for multi-tenancy engage in exactly the kind of behavior that RFC 5785 was designed to head off: it creates URLs all over the path space of the authority, rather than coralling all synthesized URLs to live under only one top-level directory. One of the key aspects of the principles of the web architecture is URI opacity <https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity>, which generally precludes clients from synthesizing URLs. RFC 5785 was intended as a very limited carve-out to the principle of URI opacity, and was carefully limited to a single top-level path element. This specification oversteps that carve-out by exploding the location that "Well-Known" synthesized URLs can appear: it literally increases it from one location (the root) to infinite locations (at the end of any arbitrary path). Fortunately, this defect is trivial to fix. Rather than placing .well-known path components *after* the path identified by an issuer identifier, you place them *before* it, which amends this document's usage to be within the spirit intended by RFC 5785. For example, the example in section 3.1: GET /issuer1/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Would instead become: GET /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server/issuer1 HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1.1: [this is an editorial suggestion that I leave to the editors' discretion] This document makes use of uncapitalized "must", "should", and "may" in places. Please consider using the RFC 8174 boilerplate instead of the RFC 2119 boilerplate. Section 7.2: [this is an important procedural comment that really should be resolved prior to publication] The addition of restrictions to registries established by RFC 6749 would seem to require that this document formally include "Updates: RFC6749" in its metadata, as well as a mention of such an update in its Abstract and Introduction sections. ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth ------------------------------ End of OAuth Digest, Vol 111, Issue 28 **************************************
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Digest, Vol 111, Issue 28 Stacey Maes