IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth vs OAuth2 in Authorization header

John Kemp <john@jkemp.net> Thu, 15 July 2010 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jkemp.net>
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 800863A6AB4 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 yHHZqVBbCgHv for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A2743A6958 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1824 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jul 2010 18:37:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box320.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.120) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2010 18:37:58 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=jkemp.net; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-Identified-User; b=g+3/ZeX6QkZiOSmDdi9dc7rZ7IGGEfjUfTx4zoIv2bhZoVmk9w4S3LpzgxyuwaA2SxLlqrDTlx7uzL8NPStm55wSZ+rK6nzcQE2B+xxn7UKo/ij8lqZHDNavx6ro/Zq8;
Received: from cpe-69-205-56-47.nycap.res.rr.com ([69.205.56.47] helo=[192.168.1.112]) by box320.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <john@jkemp.net>) id 1OZTJl-0006Qk-QT; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:37:58 -0600
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinqCZPv6N8eIMPfC-vfTXicjNIJZcE-JCOgYHIj@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:37:56 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EDC8A5FB-952C-46CC-B45B-0067058E7775@jkemp.net>
References: <AANLkTim6az--AdwmEoew2pz3kEjhc_GyEaiyo_0UhSRr@mail.gmail.com> <F747E8F8-D022-46F7-BBCE-4219BF3B27B0@hueniverse.com> <02D7ABE3-5B51-43B6-B7A2-6CB9AA045AAA@jkemp.net> <AANLkTinqCZPv6N8eIMPfC-vfTXicjNIJZcE-JCOgYHIj@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Recordon <recordond@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Identified-User: {1122:box320.bluehost.com:jkempnet:jkemp.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.205.56.47 authed with john+jkemp.net}
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth vs OAuth2 in Authorization header
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: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:38:08 -0000

On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:35 PM, David Recordon wrote:

> Given that OAuth discovery hasn't been written yet, how would an OAuth 1.0 client know about a 2.0 protected resource in the first place?

It wouldn't know anything other than it got back a WWW-Authenticate header when accessing the resource, and (thought it) knew what to do with the OAuth mechanism.

- johnk

> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:33 AM, John Kemp <john@jkemp.net> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> 
> > I would like people to raise their hand and explain how this will break actual 1.0 deployments.
> 
> What happens if a 1.0 client receives a WWW-Authenticate header from a 2.0 protected resource with the 'OAuth' mechanism specified? Might it then attempt OAuth 1 with a 2.0 token service (and thus just fail without being able to know what went wrong)?
> 
> - johnk
> 
> >
> > EHL
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jul 15, 2010, at 1:38, Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Draft 10 switched from "Token" scheme in the authorization header to
> >> "OAuth".  I'd rather we didn't reuse OAuth.  'OAuth2' would be great.
> >> "Token" is ugly as sin, but is better than "OAuth".
> >>
> >> Spec section: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-10#page-30
> >>
> >> The problem with reusing "OAuth" is that there are existing
> >> implementations in the wild that have special behavior implemented for
> >> OAuth authorization headers.  Since OAuth2 headers don't have the same
> >> semantics, we're going to break those implementations.  We shouldn't
> >> reuse "OAuth" for the same reasons we shouldn't reuse "Negotiate",
> >> "NTLM", "Digest", or "Basic.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Brian
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> OAuth@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status