Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification

William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> Tue, 10 January 2012 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4344821F8516 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:52:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.866
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ohyWgC1jjzby for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm1.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm1.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.212.160]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BF4D21F8495 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [98.139.212.152] by nm1.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2012 01:51:54 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.224] by tm9.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2012 01:51:54 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1033.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Jan 2012 01:51:54 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 835069.68993.bm@omp1033.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 87497 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Jan 2012 01:51:54 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=ginc1024; t=1326160314; bh=l+OkoHejSmKNj7oLYCVtrGDRKSgjX7/FYB+bCX6K2Zs=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JIcWEsk/cmn9FrfggxAU/NGIxrMJDyJ29gtjsdGrh/GSgA4ODzNLhoCQzNDJBfPRG/7T392u7D7J4u34rv3/uDhoLx5zKSERZOO+NVkEsWR7QgWcwdKA4MgiAqhjunV6BBeQw5KFAN9sQLu/fnUVkvomVO4zaXGd80f1UPkrB0I=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ginc1024; d=yahoo-inc.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=E8186VWPtX3lD7Gcr7V6KSeD2Sg6AkxYkutF1YcZeLqmYTi5XKHDu39srOX6i0QBCs+4WxQicZjQ4qmblFKjTL5SVEn3dnh0Iq6/o2ZpzvCLNQixpJ8da7Bco3y8UHlav53SsPg2rBdX5uJb2trMZs4OJ5C3dD6pgRTAKOhRBeU=;
X-YMail-OSG: gh44ENkVM1n77yVMfra3Iu7VFJNj9LpAPpAhCrRYNhBBypv laecv40HHFqizgrIRqUwFlGCZlfdBQV7CLdVaeEcbx98GyI1Bt77gi0iHJeC fOgntxbu8x7_CpdOV5WrlhiShXKCLpttOlVBVomk1.dafEHZ.ti0t8L9rb1O afbaEs8cCPqsxI3g8mWyKIW8DvsgljYWZtb9AR5bnJZu_67mEPT6j1k2xM5p d.vk_cpCxruph59S8AKLt7sEvhC6LxsqAwMX4__mZ2D45ouewZfCA3x6ZGpi O2t8E7_DFdI8ZjoonYvK3cqWiKGv8gV.FE3XC08fl0q83lus9BaKUel5nQDl FEXFcF9Qsu.kN3X7.j7kf2m0QyPFCIV48tR6kBTjod75qv4wJAqjZJZ_iPct yau4cLOeYpv0FoIkC9lRBixBSPT.Jp2gyRvhgRNUbm02Q6j5ANyjidPMVZuM YKW_cPDJw6rfIO_ei7qCU8aiN7siVR.lbQEgwupD8Cmz4XEjyJK2PAyqtESo gz_2zg_iikppFXZh0qGFr7BajRHndlK_kG4EuWcyTplj.qTasZ9aL4Ae5i6l BumZzCQ8bNqykRs4yFIS_1HeO5AwtXh8nIW2.
Received: from [209.131.62.113] by web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:51:54 PST
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.116.331537
References: <CAG+j4TrQGwiDj01huDgfEy+02b4=tTDYifiXcvhDHrw3i32-6Q@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120109070921.0aec8d00@resistor.net> <CAG+j4TrFoxvMMK_Bx=0e1qFLjUmKKaEmJD6hBnR06H6Fm75xfw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120109153323.0ab3bf80@resistor.net> <CAG+j4TpuO0N7n9xxB=3mh7EZhsjXDtB2DPa0S8BBJmhV_mv4Xw@mail.gmail.com> <1326156786.88572.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAG+j4TrUGtua8umh+GqJM_i6OeZrwHy7NwoGK1dTYGpHBuuV2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1326160314.71861.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:51:54 -0800 (PST)
From: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
To: agks mehx <agksmehx@gmail.com>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAG+j4TrUGtua8umh+GqJM_i6OeZrwHy7NwoGK1dTYGpHBuuV2Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1055047407-1813656947-1326160314=:71861"
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:52:01 -0000

Re your "a" below: No, implementations may issue scoped credentials if they have a default scope.  It says elsewhere in the spec that the scope issued by the server may not match the requested scope, which is why the server returns a scope value.  This is for informational purposes only for the client so it can know what scopes it should already have.


You don't have to support empty scopes, and it would be completely valid for the auth server to reject a request for an unknown scope, which could include the empty scope if the auth server doesn't support it.

-bill


________________________________
 From: agks mehx <agksmehx@gmail.com>
To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>; oauth@ietf.org 
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>; Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> 
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification
 

scope parameter in the HTTP requests.

Two choices stand out to me:  (a) keep the scope parameter truly optional which implies requiring all implementations to implement un-scoped credentials;  (b) make the scope parameter REQUIRED thus removing the confusion and letting implementations choose whether or not they want to allow an empty scope.

The former, (a), imposes a little bit of extra work for implementations but benefits users, clients, and arguably implementations, by allowing the un-scoped credentials use-case.

The latter, (b), merely improves the quality of the specification -- I do not see what purpose is served by calling the scope parameter OPTIONAL when vendors are free to require it as they please and still claim conformance.


On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:53 PM, William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

There are definitely use cases for un-scoped credentials, which the implementations I have seen implement as an empty scope.  Are you worried specifically about the scope parameter in the HTTP requests, or as represented in the credential used to access the PR?
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: agks mehx <agksmehx@gmail.com>
>To: SM <sm@resistor.net>; Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>; oauth@ietf.org 
>Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 4:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification
>
>
>
>Hi SM and Eran,
>
>
>I am confused again, after re-reading Eran's response, whether or not an implementation that rejects *missing* (as opposed to empty) scope is conformant or not.  (Eran, your response was a bit ambiguous on whether an implementation is free to error out on an missing scope parameter or not -- I can clearly see it is free to error out on an empty scope parameter, but that's a different situation than the one I am concerned about.)
>
>
>
>The vendor definitely gives a higher priority to claiming conformance and I believe they would change their implementation, but they believe they are conformant.
>
>
>I do feel the IETF Working Group should make this part of the spec less ambiguous -- why not just make 'scope' REQUIRED and end the misery?  Or, make it clear that an implementation is not conformant to the spec if it requires optional parameters?
>
>
>Additionally, I will resend a use-case for the no-scope parameter because my earlier reply unintentionally went privately to Eran and not to the list:
>
>
>I can suggest a spec modification that says that an implementation MUST accept a request without a scope parameter, in which case one possibility for an implementing server is to return an access token or code that does not allow any operations.  The purpose of this otherwise "useless" token/code is that the OAuth server confirms that the user is *some* user without any information on *which* user it is.  (If the user is not authenticated by the vendor then of course no valid token/code is returned.)
>
>
>An example might help:  Facebook, when it started, would manage social networks based on college email domain -- harvard.edu, etc.  Facebook used to do it by asking for your email address and sending a confirmation mail.  But what if I wanted to tell Facebook just the fact that I was at foo.edu but I did not want to share my email address with Facebook, or any other unique identifier?  If the spec required implementations to work without a scope parameter, it would solve this use case perfectly.  Facebook wouldn't really care about my school email address or unique id -- I could use my non-school personal email and all Facebook wanted to know was whether I should be in that school network or not simply by using the barebones no-scope OAuth request.
>
>
>Vendors do not lose anything if the spec requires such no-scope requests to be fulfilled. They are merely confirming that a user is *some* user with the user's consent.  There are valid cases on the client side such as determining network membership without needing network identity.  And it cleans out the optional semantics of scope.
>
>
>Users win in that they have a way to confirm network membership without having to reveal a unique identifier.
>
>
>Clients win in that users will be more willing to confirm network membership if they are not also required to reveal a unique identitfier.
>
>
>This is off-the-cuff but I will be very happy to formalize it and present it to the list.  I hope the essential concept made it through my writing!
>
>
>A.
>
>
>On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:47 PM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:
>
>Hello,
>>
>>At 15:14 09-01-2012, agks mehx wrote:
>>
>>Thank you for the response.  If I understand correctly, the vendor is correctly that their implementation conforms to the specification even though it rejects requests that do not specify the scope parameter.  That answers my question.
>>>
>>
The better answer is from Eran ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08194.html ).
>>
>>
>>
>>Whether I was asking for (i) a clarification; or (ii) trying to resolve a disagreement.  I think I was trying to verify whether indeed there was a disagreement. I. e. whether my understanding of the specification was correct or not.  It seems I was mistaken in understanding the spec.
>>>
>>
See comment below.
>>
>>
>>
>>There is no disagreement with the vendor at this point because the two responses from this list indicate that the vendor is right.  (I still don't understand why scope isn't made a required parameter in the specification so that such confusion can be avoided, but that's a minor point.)
>>>
>>
You locked in on the term "optional" without going into the details of the draft.  I would not claim conformance with a specification if my API specifies that the optional parts are required as someone writing an implementation from the draft will run into the same problem as you.  Saying that the vendor is wrong will not get them to fix it.
>>
>>Regards,
>>-sm 
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OAuth mailing list
>OAuth@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>