Re: [OAUTH-WG] WGLC for OAuth 2.0 Device Flow for Browserless and Input Constrained Devices

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 02 January 2018 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rifaat.ietf@gmail.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 D98971276AF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:30:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HkuyNcum4oZU for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22b.google.com (mail-vk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8614C126CBF for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id o16so30903345vke.12 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jan 2018 13:30:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oIgJmrizlvKOT4RlIx7P2n1btPrYOUO3n9ct/fvi3NI=; b=Snom1iOR20C/gdT2y57nOfnPQ3uwjYQx4NmMdMBfA/S3X/J/1PHEjQ6mh21CVKuDCb 7kYk6wYtQVEnpgBU0VyyEC/sXSWBPpuKSgi65SbUEA1gSzTIctfKnHnMDScBgKAXEtwg WwP2WeeOrxxujiSSIXBrgndx9klC3BrlcWu2LYeOiOn/Th/zcWqsUc8+vU6dtv9yV2V8 Wwr7hp2zGt89l/yf4tn2OBYYV+ckud3F0yyfSOE6JmGFOnM+gegjeQJz6Jy50iax91Pn I/c+H0+4w9+4eIGqgAI8NcDw4ohzDux2DRpN96DKq7vhTsFk/nFspwEJB5vQ2FCt8Vgl pDvg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oIgJmrizlvKOT4RlIx7P2n1btPrYOUO3n9ct/fvi3NI=; b=OXrI5Bwxw1wen0Kte0BSEw7FQtDQBN5qYzAbxWFeGKIZgPMQtmD3KVmSLhrVWGN32K Rffu3o5Fy9L7FhszwAWiAiq5PelnE+SoI7OGgBI0LZSYDY+8GgUvsQh91Ba5aLbq0Upx vbX2EqbuzuMf7ESOqf2zme9FFUa0NiSay1qXO96d6wMaRBtImtcdVYyOB/YrI7off19p gQrzZSsLDcD7uLf7YwwL2lwOFxc3rciyhhk1+uIU5/hIIrqkdXuqIsXt4I45LX/3PjNP KMnSXhRRBCM2gq6Xm1XH2XpPaOKh87RStRye2a9cgYylQkHWxznBzZ9VKwB5ivTBnQKM +F6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLGl01qfOiPKytisFg2jGCg/RCNf8hv3lzUIdMxvtX9WfQEaidX EYFxI1sn1BHuRW5csFKKmavxvIKAhEA0qkzj5l0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosmP/vz1F/7lPzdEtu8au2RVABFUszDv4z6OodHxZPTlj5DJY+/GDlh/vdnAVw+mEN9ArHSguCTDLZA8Qi8hQo=
X-Received: by 10.31.192.10 with SMTP id q10mr46285067vkf.33.1514928638645; Tue, 02 Jan 2018 13:30:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.64.201 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:30:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAP42hBxPhq_pMN7fON=HVW5kE=E=Xqt8Yo-9JHJOTBp6MuFLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGL6epLJHUn+4E1jksJW=Zpu=DE84uQgARhHyPH3H8yAAkijOg@mail.gmail.com> <4e14a1ec-8b6d-476b-3949-8a0b63017232@connect2id.com> <CAAP42hBY74goaNvJBb0yQ9AG4aQAmyVGxJFxHrUYtDdefouEJA@mail.gmail.com> <b123d697-25ae-43df-2ef9-388c0adfdb92@connect2id.com> <CAAP42hBxPhq_pMN7fON=HVW5kE=E=Xqt8Yo-9JHJOTBp6MuFLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 16:30:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGL6ep+w8UZ=smE0kd=tBUyYbfhkkcHQVpoT+poGzDhm3_3cfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
Cc: Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114398425dd9f90561d1cfc4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/YijahkJ5LHIT1DTuLKX68helQ-U>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] WGLC for OAuth 2.0 Device Flow for Browserless and Input Constrained Devices
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 02 Jan 2018 21:30:42 -0000

William,

I will start working on the write-up soon.

Regards,
 Rifaat



On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:07 PM, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <
> vladimir@connect2id.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/12/17 00:43, William Denniss wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <
>> vladimir@connect2id.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I just got a question on Twitter about the slow_down error:
>> >>
>> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-07#
>> section-3.5
>> >>
>> >> The question was why slow_down is communicated via HTTP status code 400
>> >> and not 429 (Too Many Requests).
>> >>
>> > We could, it seems to match the intent of that error code. Main reason
>> it's
>> > not like that so far is that 400 is the default for OAuth, I fear people
>> > may not be checking for a 429. We don't strictly *need* the 429, since
>> > we're returning data in machine readable format one way or another (i.e.
>> > it's easy for the client to extract the "slow_down" response either
>> way),
>> > which differs from HTML over HTTP which is intended for end-user
>> > consumption, making the specific status code more important.
>> Yes, on a 400 clients will need to check the error JSON object anyway,
>> so the "slow_down" cannot be missed. Whereas with 429 that becomes more
>> likely.
>>
>> +1 to return "slow_down" with status 400 as it is with the other OAuth
>> error codes.
>>
>
> Thanks for considering this Vladimir. To conclude this topic, it seems
> there are no compelling reasons to change to the 429, and a reasonable
> explanation of why it's a 400, so I think we should keep things as-is.
>
> Rifaat: The deadline has passed on the WGLC, and I believe all comments
> raised have been addressed. Can we now advance the draft?
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>