Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Fri, 15 October 2010 05:29 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.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 6B6AF3A68B6 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 9-SBxB3h5jKU for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A855F3A6A65 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21441 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2010 05:30:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 15 Oct 2010 05:30:41 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:30:41 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:30:31 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
Thread-Index: ActrN3SADdtlmDJIRsyK9ERucPk/wgAuEXqQAAys2oAAACbDIAABCygQAACzY6A=
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FDFE@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <AANLkTik30oVX+AevGCZDHajjyrDnEVB=fp6rAdihkPFz@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127056337B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343D4691FDFA@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127062CA94@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127062CA94@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
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: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:29:29 -0000

I have no objection to this if it passes the smell test by some HTTP experts. I'll ask.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:10 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
> 
> Eran,
> 
> > How would you suggest we define a general purpose www-authenticate
> > header that does not have a matching request header?
> 
> Why would that be a problem?
> We define what a "WWW-Authenticate: OAuth2 ..." response header
> means, but don't define any meaning for a "Authorization: OAuth2 ..."
> request header.
> No other scheme should define a meaning for "Authorization: OAuth2 ...".
> Consequently, the bearer token spec need to choose a different scheme
> name (eg "BEARER" or "TOKEN" or "EXTERNAL") so it can define request &
> response headers.
> 
> There is even some precedent for this. draft-broyer-http-cookie-auth
> defines "WWW-Authenticate: COOKIE ...", without any matching request
> header.
> I think there have also been ideas to define something like "WWW-
> Authenticate: TLS ..." to indicate when authentication at a lower layer (TLS,
> IPsec) is required. Again there was no matching "Authorization: TLS ..."
> header.
> 
> --
> James Manger
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth