Re: [OAUTH-WG] OK to post updated Bearer spec changing and adding examples?

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> OAuth Chairs,

Changed CC address; please see my list message:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08531.html

> Do you approve of posting an updated Bearer spec as below, assuming the
> working group does not object by mid-day Monday?

Yes, that makes sense.

Barry, still chairing for a short time yet

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Jones
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 9:50 AM
To: 'Paul Madsen'; Brian Campbell
Cc: oauth
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer



I plan to make the change to the example access token value to
mF_9.B5f-4.1JqM before Monday’s submission deadline, per the requests
for b64token syntax clarification.  I’m also considering adding an
access token response example, pre the requests in this thread.  I
would propose adding the following new text for this in a new Section
4 (before the current Security Considerations).  This is largely
parallel to what is done in Section 5.1 of the MAC spec.



4.  Example Access Token Response



Typically a bearer token is returned to the client as part of an OAuth
2.0 [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2] access token response. An example of such as
response is:



     HTTP/1.1 200 OK

     Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8

     Cache-Control: no-store

     Pragma: no-cache



     {

       "access_token":"mF_9.B5f-4.1JqM",

       "token_type":"Bearer",

       "expires_in":3600,

       "refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA"

     }



Please send either +1s or objections to this text by mid-day Monday.
Unless I receive several +1s, to be conservative at this point, I will
not be including it in Monday’s draft.



                                                            -- Mike



From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Paul Madsen
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 1:34 PM
To: Brian Campbell
Cc: oauth
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer



+1

On 3/7/12 4:08 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:

Yeah, it is case insensitive. I just went with the upper case B

because that's how it was written in §5.1.1 of

draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17* which is where I guess it's actually

defined. But I see draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23 uses a lower case b**.

Either one would be fine.



I agree that an example response from the token endpoint would be

worthwhile.  Something like the following might help tie together with

the Authorization header example (proposed earlier). It could maybe be

worked in near the top of §2?



     HTTP/1.1 200 OK

     Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8

     Cache-Control: no-store

     Pragma: no-cache



     {

       "access_token":"vF_9.5dCf-t4.qbcmT_k1b",

       "token_type":"example",

       "expires_in":3600,

       "refresh_token":"stGzv3xOdkF0X35Qp2TlKWIA",

     }



It'd probably make sense to change the examples in the body §2.2***

and query §2.3**** to use the same access token value too.





* http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17#section-5.1.1

** http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23#section-7.1

*** http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17#section-2.2

**** http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17#section-2.3





On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Makes sense to me, except that I think the token_type value is typically

    lowercase "bearer", though it's defined to be case insensitive in

    Oauth-v2-23 section 5.1. Come to think of it, I'm not sure that the value of

    this field for the Bearer token type ever got defined anywhere. Section 7.1

    references the bearer spec as defining the value of the "token_type"

    parameter, and passes its example as if by reference. Would be worthwhile

    giving an example of a token endpoint response, such as what's found in

    OAuth-v2-23 section 5.1.



     -- Justin





    On 03/07/2012 12:16 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:



        I'd like to propose the following changes and additions, derived

        largely from Bill and James suggestions, to

        draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17.  These changes have no normative impact

        and only aim to add additional clarity and explanation the workings

        and implications of the current spec.  I'm definitely open to changes

        or improvements in the wording here (not my strong suit by any means)

        but I think it's important that these general ideas be conveyed in the

        draft.





        ==>  Insert the following text at the beginning of §2:



        To make a protected resource request, the client must be in possession

        of a valid bearer token. Typically a bearer token is returned to the

        client as part of an access token response as defined in OAuth 2.0

        [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2]. When the "token_type" parameter of the access

        token response is "Bearer", the string value of the "access_token"

        parameter becomes the bearer access token used to make protected

        resource requests.



        ==>  Change the value of the token in the Authorization header
example to

        this:



        Authorization: Bearer vF_9.5dCf-t4.qbcmT_k1b



        ==>  Insert the following text before the last paragraph of §2.1:



        Note that the name b64token does not imply base64 encoding but rather

        is the name for an ABNF syntax definition from HTTP/1.1, Part 7

        [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p7-auth]. Because of its use, the "access_token"

        string value from an access token response MUST match the b64token

        ABNF so it can be used with the Bearer HTTP scheme.





        Thanks,

        Brian









        On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:45 AM, William Mills<[e-mail]>

         wrote:



            Yeah, something as simple as, "Note that the name
'b64token' does not

            imply

            base64 encoding, see the definition in [[INSERT REFERENCE
HERE]]." would

            do

            it.



            -bill



            ________________________________

            From: Brian Campbell<[e-mail]>

            To: Mike Jones<[e-mail]>

            Cc: oauth<[e-mail]>

            Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 8:23 AM



            Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in

            draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer



            Thanks Mike, I think changing the example would be helpful.



            However I think that including some text along the lines
of what James

            suggested would also be very valuable. I agree that the connection

            between OAuth and Bearer could and should be made more explicit. And

            that the implications of the b64token syntax, particularly
on what AS

            can use to construct ATs, could/should be made more clear.



            I can propose some specific text (building on James') if
others in the WG

            agree?





            On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Mike
Jones<[e-mail]>

            wrote:



                I'm fine with changing the example to make it clearer
that b64token

                allows

                a wider range of characters than just those legal for base64 and

                base64url

                encodings of data values.



                I'll add it to my to-do list for any additional edits
for the Bearer

                spec.



                                               -- Mike



                -----Original Message-----

                From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf

                Of

                Manger, James H

                Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 3:33 PM

                To: Brian Campbell; oauth

                Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in

                draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer



                Brian,



                    On casual reading of "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Protocol: Bearer

                    Tokens"* I've encountered several people
(including myself) who have

                    made the assumption that the name b64token implies
that some kind of

                    base64 encoding/decoding on the access token is
taking place between

                    the client and RS.



                    Digging a bit deeper in to "HTTP/1.1, part 7:
Authentication"**,

                    however, I see that b64token is just an ABNF
syntax definition

                    allowing for characters typically used in base64,
base64url, etc.. So

                    the b64token doesn't define any encoding or
decoding but rather just

                    defines what characters can be used in the part of
the Authorization

                    header that will contain the access token.



                    Do I read this correctly?



                Yes.



                    If so, I feel like some additional clarifying text
in the Bearer

                    Tokens draft might help avoid what is (based on my
small sample) a

                    common point of misunderstanding.



                Changing the example bearer token should be a simple
way to avoid some

                confusion by showing that it does not have to be
base64 encoding. How

                about

                changing:

                 Authorization: Bearer vF9dft4qmT

                to

                 Authorization: Bearer vF9.dft4.qmT



                The Bearer spec has lots of (unnecessary) text about
OAuth, but doesn't

                quite manage to be precise about how OAuth and Bearer
connect. It could

                explicitly state that the string value of the
"access_token" member of

                an

                access token response is the bearer token. The
"access_token" string

                value

                (after unescaping any JSON-escapes) MUST match the
b64token ABNF so it

                can

                be used with the Bearer HTTP scheme. Such text could
be put in §5.1.1

                where

                the "Bearer" OAuth access token type is defined.





                    Also, does the use of b64token implicitly limit
the allowed characters

                    that an AS can use to construct a bearer access token?



                Yes.





                    *
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-17#section-2.1

                    **


http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18#section-2.1



                --

                James Manger