IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> Thu, 15 July 2010 07:00 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 3BAB03A6A6A for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 OHjwFAtH1Sze for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:13 -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 0B38E3A69F9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,206,1278252000"; d="scan'208";a="6017870"
Received: from unknown (HELO ipccni.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.208]) by ipobni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2010 17:00:20 +1000
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6043"; a="4623904"
Received: from wsmsg3706.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.80]) by ipccni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2010 17:00:22 +1000
Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by wsmsg3706.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.80]) with mapi; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:00:21 +1000
From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:00:44 +1000
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth vs OAuth2 in Authorization header
Thread-Index: Acsj5jSIaOM5cIMoRqCCxMmpinVPbwAANi3A
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E112662F02E7@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <AANLkTim6az--AdwmEoew2pz3kEjhc_GyEaiyo_0UhSRr@mail.gmail.com> <4C3EA944.1060302@lodderstedt.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C3EA944.1060302@lodderstedt.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] 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 07:00:14 -0000

> Draft 10 switched from "Token" scheme in the authorization header to
> "OAuth".  I'd rather we didn't reuse OAuth.

I agree that "OAuth" is taken as a scheme name.
I like "Bearer" for the Authorization header scheme holding an access token.

We should use a different name for the WWW-Authentication scheme that announces that user delegation or credential-swapping can be used to get credentials to access this service. "OAuth2" would be a decent choice for this, "Delegate" might be even better.

--> GET ...
<-- 401
    WWW-Authenticate: Delegate realm=... user_uri=... token_uri=... features=...
<-> do the OAuth2 stuff
--> GET ...
    Authorization: Bearer a=...

-- 
James Manger

v2.38.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status