Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on -18
Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Mon, 25 July 2011 16:10 UTC
Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
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 BB9D521F910C for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.915
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.334, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BfRO7qoCyFD6 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay04.ispgateway.de (smtprelay04.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B5A21F86D0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 07:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.17.214] by smtprelay04.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1QlM4l-0001Bu-3P; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:24:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4E2D7C84.9080601@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:24:04 -0400
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
References: <4E274D61.4020804@lodderstedt.net> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345021F378BE@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345021F378BE@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Df-Sender: torsten@lodderstedt-online.de
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on -18
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:10:45 -0000
Hi Eran, >> section 5.2 >> >> "The authorization server MAY return an HTTP 401 >> (Unauthorized) status code to indicate which HTTP >> authentication schemes are supported." >> >> Given the usage of HTTP authentication schemes is the way to authenticated >> client recommended by the spec, status code 401 should be the default >> status code for this kind of error. Usage of status code 400 should be the >> exception. >> >> "unauthorized_client" >> >> So above - status code 403 seems to be a more appropriate default. > I think this is fine unchanged. Can you please give a rationale? ... >> section 10.6 >> >> Please replace the first sentence with the following text: >> >> "Such an attack leverages the authorization code ..." > That reads funny. How about 'An attacker can leverage...' No one said we have to write boring text :-) Your proposal is fine. regards, Torsten. > EHL >
- [OAUTH-WG] Comments on -18 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on -18 Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on -18 Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on -18 Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Comments on -18 Torsten Lodderstedt