Re: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-03-10, at 12:49 PM, Mike Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I plan to make the change to the example access token value to mF_9.B5f-4.1JqM before Monday’s submission deadline, per the requests for b64token syntax clarification.  I’m also considering adding an access token response example, pre the requests in this thread.  I would propose adding the following new text for this in a new Section 4 (before the current Security Considerations).  This is largely parallel to what is done in Section 5.1 of the MAC spec.
>  
> 4.  Example Access Token Response
>  
> Typically a bearer token is returned to the client as part of an OAuth 2.0 [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2] access token response. An example of such as response is:
>  
>      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>      Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
>      Cache-Control: no-store
>      Pragma: no-cache
>  
>      {
>        "access_token":"mF_9.B5f-4.1JqM",
>        "token_type":"Bearer",
>        "expires_in":3600,
>        "refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA"
>      }
>  
> Please send either +1s or objections to this text by mid-day Monday.  Unless I receive several +1s, to be conservative at this point, I will not be including it in Monday’s draft.
>  
>                                                             -- Mike
>  
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Paul Madsen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 1:34 PM
> To: Brian Campbell
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer
>  
> +1
> 
> On 3/7/12 4:08 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> Yeah, it is case insensitive. I just went with the upper case B
> because that's how it was written in §5.1.1 of
> draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17* which is where I guess it's actually
> defined. But I see draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23 uses a lower case b**.
> Either one would be fine.
>  
> I agree that an example response from the token endpoint would be
> worthwhile.  Something like the following might help tie together with
> the Authorization header example (proposed earlier). It could maybe be
> worked in near the top of §2?
>  
>      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>      Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
>      Cache-Control: no-store
>      Pragma: no-cache
>  
>      {
>        "access_token":"vF_9.5dCf-t4.qbcmT_k1b",
>        "token_type":"example",
>        "expires_in":3600,
>        "refresh_token":"stGzv3xOdkF0X35Qp2TlKWIA",
>      }
>  
> It'd probably make sense to change the examples in the body §2.2***
> and query §2.3**** to use the same access token value too.
>  
>  
> * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17#section-5.1.1
> ** http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23#section-7.1
> *** http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17#section-2.2
> **** http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17#section-2.3
>  
>  
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Makes sense to me, except that I think the token_type value is typically
> lowercase "bearer", though it's defined to be case insensitive in
> Oauth-v2-23 section 5.1. Come to think of it, I'm not sure that the value of
> this field for the Bearer token type ever got defined anywhere. Section 7.1
> references the bearer spec as defining the value of the "token_type"
> parameter, and passes its example as if by reference. Would be worthwhile
> giving an example of a token endpoint response, such as what's found in
> OAuth-v2-23 section 5.1.
>  
>  -- Justin
>  
>  
> On 03/07/2012 12:16 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
>  
> I'd like to propose the following changes and additions, derived
> largely from Bill and James suggestions, to
> draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17.  These changes have no normative impact
> and only aim to add additional clarity and explanation the workings
> and implications of the current spec.  I'm definitely open to changes
> or improvements in the wording here (not my strong suit by any means)
> but I think it's important that these general ideas be conveyed in the
> draft.
>  
>  
> ==>  Insert the following text at the beginning of §2:
>  
> To make a protected resource request, the client must be in possession
> of a valid bearer token. Typically a bearer token is returned to the
> client as part of an access token response as defined in OAuth 2.0
> [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2]. When the "token_type" parameter of the access
> token response is "Bearer", the string value of the "access_token"
> parameter becomes the bearer access token used to make protected
> resource requests.
>  
> ==>  Change the value of the token in the Authorization header example to
> this:
>  
> Authorization: Bearer vF_9.5dCf-t4.qbcmT_k1b
>  
> ==>  Insert the following text before the last paragraph of §2.1:
>  
> Note that the name b64token does not imply base64 encoding but rather
> is the name for an ABNF syntax definition from HTTP/1.1, Part 7
> [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p7-auth]. Because of its use, the "access_token"
> string value from an access token response MUST match the b64token
> ABNF so it can be used with the Bearer HTTP scheme.
>  
>  
> Thanks,
> Brian
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:45 AM, William Mills<[e-mail]>
>  wrote:
>  
> Yeah, something as simple as, "Note that the name 'b64token' does not
> imply
> base64 encoding, see the definition in [[INSERT REFERENCE HERE]]." would
> do
> it.
>  
> -bill
>  
> ________________________________
> From: Brian Campbell<[e-mail]>
> To: Mike Jones<[e-mail]>
> Cc: oauth<[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 8:23 AM
>  
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in
> draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer
>  
> Thanks Mike, I think changing the example would be helpful.
>  
> However I think that including some text along the lines of what James
> suggested would also be very valuable. I agree that the connection
> between OAuth and Bearer could and should be made more explicit. And
> that the implications of the b64token syntax, particularly on what AS
> can use to construct ATs, could/should be made more clear.
>  
> I can propose some specific text (building on James') if others in the WG
> agree?
>  
>  
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Mike Jones<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>  
> I'm fine with changing the example to make it clearer that b64token
> allows
> a wider range of characters than just those legal for base64 and
> base64url
> encodings of data values.
>  
> I'll add it to my to-do list for any additional edits for the Bearer
> spec.
>  
>                                -- Mike
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of
> Manger, James H
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 3:33 PM
> To: Brian Campbell; oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in
> draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer
>  
> Brian,
>  
> On casual reading of "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer
> Tokens"* I've encountered several people (including myself) who have
> made the assumption that the name b64token implies that some kind of
> base64 encoding/decoding on the access token is taking place between
> the client and RS.
>  
> Digging a bit deeper in to "HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication"**,
> however, I see that b64token is just an ABNF syntax definition
> allowing for characters typically used in base64, base64url, etc.. So
> the b64token doesn't define any encoding or decoding but rather just
> defines what characters can be used in the part of the Authorization
> header that will contain the access token.
>  
> Do I read this correctly?
>  
> Yes.
>  
> If so, I feel like some additional clarifying text in the Bearer
> Tokens draft might help avoid what is (based on my small sample) a
> common point of misunderstanding.
>  
> Changing the example bearer token should be a simple way to avoid some
> confusion by showing that it does not have to be base64 encoding. How
> about
> changing:
>  Authorization: Bearer vF9dft4qmT
> to
>  Authorization: Bearer vF9.dft4.qmT
>  
> The Bearer spec has lots of (unnecessary) text about OAuth, but doesn't
> quite manage to be precise about how OAuth and Bearer connect. It could
> explicitly state that the string value of the "access_token" member of
> an
> access token response is the bearer token. The "access_token" string
> value
> (after unescaping any JSON-escapes) MUST match the b64token ABNF so it
> can
> be used with the Bearer HTTP scheme. Such text could be put in §5.1.1
> where
> the "Bearer" OAuth access token type is defined.
>  
>  
> Also, does the use of b64token implicitly limit the allowed characters
> that an AS can use to construct a bearer access token?
>  
> Yes.
>  
>  
> * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17#section-2.1
> **
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18#section-2.1
>  
> --
> James Manger
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth