Re: [OAUTH-WG] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-introspection-09: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 11 June 2015 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C010D1B2BA7; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 upjPg7GrQvnZ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) (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 C53A21B2B27; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iebgx4 with SMTP id gx4so12903670ieb.0; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Zlxk4F6A0WyEghlDmZrVF9tQeJE2/AIKMrlXobKnxWU=; b=spELvlozf2hI+tb2mZpAJ7QSm8VjFPNLUvayVY7TPF6nyPpttb5GKazgp1fdjG+DZW s1d0XX1/jNZzOzck5HgvJmyj1YPxBqmS9cGM348n0oRjIe5HDLDy8hstoFAOwTWqdDee h+Of63PF4mAdiWMQas0Xnx3HfJS9hRjOVshObrIWw4BDBku8KqYBHyg45/eOKepFl5Cq bboTUMsCIUBN8OjGjdLee4S5//BSOHznad1T73B0rJQOTLke5kjopQ2uKEblIKADxa+U inkxpXDhC2+Q61zv3egYj/ZK436FzUMu+2eZn2PfARxcav/1DrGLaRdE4676drcA4GdX 0OPw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.42 with SMTP id l42mr13782917iod.60.1434058359325; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.16.222 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AE7633AA-BC8A-4E16-B434-9B17D897AB82@mit.edu>
References: <20150608123617.6617.42932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A62D61C9-C6A0-4988-B7DC-73B39F69FCD5@mit.edu> <CALaySJ+XpvcnStdK3JC_3j9ztQVaRVc0OK=hTOQB2eO06C_XZg@mail.gmail.com> <AE7633AA-BC8A-4E16-B434-9B17D897AB82@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:32:39 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: K1oxDTNuqmKA_mztqT0psdpSRgE
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+PvgOJHCssMH49AZ286fLhbYx10vBE1Z+dw1Qnn89=pQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/DKf9rKHzHvWuQo3CfxjR3frWoOk>
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-introspection@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-introspection.ad@ietf.org, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-introspection.shepherd@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-introspection-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 11 Jun 2015 21:32:40 -0000

>> 1. Why is GET an optimization?  It has privacy disadvantages, and I
>> don't see any advantages.
>>
>> 2. This "tight coupling" thing is something that I think weakens the
>> interoperability of the OAuth protocol in general, and I've never
>> liked it.  In this case, in particular, I don't see any advantage to
>> it, and I don't understand why it's useful to have an option that only
>> works if you have inside knowledge, for no benefit.
>>
>> Why is it ever good to have clients that only work with certain
>> servers, when it's just as easy to make sure that all clients work
>> with all servers?
>
> I can see your point here, and others have raised it as well. Part of
> the reason the GET option is there is that most (if not all) of the
> existing implementations of this protocol enable it anyway. Having
> thought about this a bit, I would be fine with simply saying that POST
> is required and remaining silent on other methods in the main section.
> We can keep the warnings against also allowing GET in the security
> considerations. Will that work?

That will be of great excellence all 'round.  Thanks!

Barry