Re: [OAUTH-WG] Looking for a compromise on signatures and other open issues

"Manger, James H" <> Tue, 28 September 2010 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A67F3A6C83 for <>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.416
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.484, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IIronGP09H3y for <>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39B33A6851 for <>; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.57,246,1283695200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="12544858"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2010 17:35:32 +1000
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6119"; a="9967398"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2010 17:35:32 +1000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:35:32 +1000
From: "Manger, James H" <>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <>, "OAuth WG (" <>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:35:30 +1000
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Looking for a compromise on signatures and other open issues
Thread-Index: Actez1CK1yneinyMRserD5y1FIwYngAC2uPA
Message-ID: <>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D460DB5BE@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D460DB5BE@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1126C437335WSMSG3153Vsrv_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Looking for a compromise on signatures and other open issues
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:34:58 -0000

Sounds great Eran,

> 1. Add a parameter to the token response to include an extensible token scheme.

Yes. I suggest a parameter named "scheme". The value can be an HTTP authentication scheme name (eg "scheme":"BASIC") for which the response is providing credentials. Not all possibilities are HTTP authentication schemes but they can be assigned pseudo-HTTP-auth-scheme-names (eg "scheme":"TLS-PSK").

> The default (if omitted) will be whatever the bearer token scheme is called.

May as well include the bearer token scheme name (ie don't bother with a default). Might even be convenient to use the scheme name as a JSON key in a token response.



    "basic":{"userid":"jim","password":"beer2"} }

> 2. Break the core specification into multiple parts.

Yes. Hopefully the "using a token" parts don't have to be OAuth-specific. They might not even use the term "token". A signature spec could use an "id" and "key", without caring whether or not those items came from a "getting a token" response or from a config file.

> 3. Introduce two signature proposals in one or more documents, for the JSON token and 1.0a-like method.

Yes. Separate docs for each signature proposal sounds best to me.

> --- Benefits


> 2. Solve a few open issues:


> * The need to decide on discovery for the entire protocol (moves it to each scheme).

I don't think it removes much of the need for discovery.

Apps still need to discover that OAuth delegation can be used to access a resource (and where to send the user). I suspect the token response performs some of the discovery related to specific schemes (eg the response says "here is a token to use with the 'BEARER' scheme", or "here is an id for this delegation and a secret to used in signature scheme XYZ".


James Manger