IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter

"Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> Sat, 17 April 2010 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.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 D76293A6945 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.062
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
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 aZWdF6jBF5ug for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipxano.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxano.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3ED3A68F9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,226,1270389600"; d="scan'208,217";a="1419249"
Received: from unknown (HELO ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.200]) by ipoani.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2010 22:30:29 +1000
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,5953"; a="1129044"
Received: from wsmsg3706.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.80]) by ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2010 22:30:29 +1000
Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by wsmsg3706.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.80]) with mapi; Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:30:28 +1000
From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:30:26 +1000
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter
Thread-Index: AcreCrwzy/VTT5RFTXKXKySFcyc7IQAG320Q
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1125759234D@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <h2o74caaad21004151238w60c3afd3td8dccdd8a7127a4a@mail.gmail.com> <C7ECBC36.32379%eran@hueniverse.com> <191F411E00E19F4E943ECDB6D65C60851691F095@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1125748109A@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <191F411E00E19F4E943ECDB6D65C60851691F5A9@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11257591D3B@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <191F411E00E19F4E943ECDB6D65C60851691F645@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11257591E3F@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <4BC975C4.9040003@lodderstedt.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BC975C4.9040003@lodderstedt.net>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1125759234DWSMSG3153Vsrv_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter
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: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:30:45 -0000

> authz-uri=http://as.com
> realm=foo
>
> What do you think?



I can’t see any benefit in making the client app combine the realm and authz-uri, over the server just returning an authz-uri with that information already included (in whatever concise form it wants).





Matching realm values allows a client to recognize when the same credential (eg token) can be used. This might preclude realm values differing between Foo and Bar services that can accept the same tokens.





--

James Manger



From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net]
Sent: Saturday, 17 April 2010 6:48 PM
To: Manger, James H
Cc: Justin Smith; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Scope parameter



in a recent discussion, another proposal was to use the realm attribute of the WWW-Authenticate header to indicate the scope

So in your example the header would include two attributes
authz-uri=http://as.com
realm=foo

What do you think?

regards,
Torsten.

Am 16.04.2010 06:43, schrieb Manger, James H:

> So, let’s say there is an Authorization Server available at http://as.com and it protects the http://foo.com and http://bar.com resources.



> A client requests  http://foo.com. The foo.com server responds with a WWW-Auth that contains the http://as.com URI. The client then sends an access token request to http://as.com. Is that right?



> If so, then how does http://as.com know that the intended resource is http://foo.com?





Foo.com should point the client at, say, http://as.com/foo/ or http://foo.as.com/ or http://as.com/?scope=foo or http://as.com/?encrypted_resource_id=273648264287642 or whatever it has agreed to with its AS.

The WWW-Auth response from foo.com should not be just http://as.com.

Foo is much better placed to know it shares as.com with Bar than a client is.



--

James Manger

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email