Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re: Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Fri, 15 June 2012 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.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 93AA421F8533 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 GMplrskVIS-p for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog121.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog121.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC2221F8532 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob121.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT9tgy7sz761SpTo2AFuu5bWkAI7CUMPw@postini.com; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:20:28 PDT
Received: by qaeb19 with SMTP id b19so221258qae.18 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=NZgVkeAkOMP1jYVPsQRjyFSmaykl5Skxv3AAoWp17oI=; b=fb7U2jbrRdYfJcgkCeZwDlpdpUAB3PyUwnrnKSmen+jWT8NJmT5g5GRuoMAAtXP8l6 LehAycGURLk4e7zbiMHJ8Z0LhxHnOEhTlmOcFlgNlhp7iiRicGb5POOHhzAhNDQHNjFs ecXxER1nzZMg6n+RSr45T9TxZl0Is4owAi+AyLRQfaeeey9nIU3UaYE1c2ZO809P4Hx0 va8aCAGCPpViZTp1l+tfCEfJieNFYcf3JmBY91a+786ULsci6AT8VCr5cjn+E2nJCaJb O3JDRnRkn+0tH6aFvVe+vkUhnTA/tB3/u5PUaN/m6liz9x58mdDQRfT9ZrTPFFHdH3SW NLCg==
Received: by 10.224.217.67 with SMTP id hl3mr12165635qab.75.1339777223904; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.226.140 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436654ABB1@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <9dbeab60-8fe4-4828-9c52-d7af95378f4c@email.android.com> <0ec59f35-4a66-4719-adf3-114dab0d1d48@email.android.com> <40240328-0247-4278-BB7B-BE89AE130076@ve7jtb.com> <a55ad34e52e0f9755e548106d27c4b8c@treenet.co.nz> <4FDB593B.4080508@aol.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436654ABB1@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:19:52 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCQHMmvo4EbyFQ4WkzzuMq_SUYpvLXDqOCEO5YoukbyE5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlt7SPyiq1ur5I/Cbgpadz5fbm586BQsNVl7Zl/yf4a65UrCR+5Af2wqndsH1S+MXRGeMBw
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re: Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions
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: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:20:37 -0000

+1

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Mike Jones
<Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Based on use cases I’m seeing, believe it’s important to allow the use of
> URIs as client_id values (which means allowing “:” in the client_id
> string).  I’m OK with us either specifying a specific encoding when using
> them in Basic or simply saying that “When client_ids are used with HTTP
> Basic that contain characters such as “:” not allowed in HTTP Basic
> usernames, then the participants will need to agree upon a method of
> encoding the client_id for use with HTTP Basic.
>
>
>
>                                                             -- Mike
>
>
>
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> George Fletcher
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:48 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re: Discussion
> needed on username and password ABNF definitions
>
>
>
> +1 for a simple encoding and allowing ':' in the client_id
>
> On 6/13/12 6:53 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
> On 14.06.2012 06:40, John Bradley wrote:
>
> That would probably work as well.  That is why I am not particularly
> concerned about excluding the :
>
> We originally used the URI itself,  mostly for convenience of
> debugging,  but there are other potential options.
>
> The authorization server needs to compare the client_id and the
> redirect uri. But it could compare the hash with not much more work.
> Also a sha256 hash is probably longer than the uri it is hashing.
>
> I am not super concerned with being able to have : in the client_id
>
> John B.
>
>
>
> If I'm following all these threads correctly the only explicit problem with
> URI in client_id is HTTP username field being : terminated.
> As such it does not have to be a hash per-se, just an encoding that removes
> ":" and other reserved characters from the on-wire form *when sent via
> HTTP*.
>
> AYJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>