IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split

"Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> Fri, 15 October 2010 05:09 UTC

Return-Path: <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19DA03A6A3C for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <20fXK1kmng1S>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Improper folded header field made up entirely of whitespace (char 20 hex): References: ...4691FDFA@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>\n \n
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.393, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20fXK1kmng1S for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ABEA3A699A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,334,1283695200"; d="scan'208";a="14301744"
Received: from unknown (HELO ipcbni.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.204]) by ipobni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2010 16:10:27 +1100
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6136"; a="11068473"
Received: from wsmsg3755.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.196]) by ipcbni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2010 16:10:27 +1100
Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by WSMSG3755.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.196]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:10:26 +1100
From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:10:25 +1100
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
Thread-Index: ActrN3SADdtlmDJIRsyK9ERucPk/wgAuEXqQAAys2oAAACbDIAABCygQ
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127062CA94@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <AANLkTik30oVX+AevGCZDHajjyrDnEVB=fp6rAdihkPFz@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127056337B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FDFA@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 15 Oct 2010 05:09:10 -0000

Eran,

> How would you suggest we define a general purpose www-authenticate
> header that does not have a matching request header?

Why would that be a problem?
We define what a "WWW-Authenticate: OAuth2 ..." response header means, but don't define any meaning for a "Authorization: OAuth2 ..." request header.
No other scheme should define a meaning for "Authorization: OAuth2 ...".
Consequently, the bearer token spec need to choose a different scheme name (eg "BEARER" or "TOKEN" or "EXTERNAL") so it can define request & response headers.

There is even some precedent for this. draft-broyer-http-cookie-auth defines "WWW-Authenticate: COOKIE ...", without any matching request header.
I think there have also been ideas to define something like "WWW-Authenticate: TLS ..." to indicate when authentication at a lower layer (TLS, IPsec) is required. Again there was no matching "Authorization: TLS ..." header.

--
James Manger

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email