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

Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> Fri, 15 June 2012 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.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 816AF21F853C for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 B3v9Er2bzFNj for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex2out03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex2out03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [184.168.131.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB31321F852E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P3PWEX2HT002.ex2.secureserver.net ([184.168.131.10]) by p3plex2out03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with bizsmtp id NgSL1j0060Dcg9U01gSL2v; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:26:20 -0700
Received: from P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net ([169.254.8.66]) by P3PWEX2HT002.ex2.secureserver.net ([184.168.131.10]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:26:19 -0700
From: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re: Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions
Thread-Index: AQHNSw5aQ+07XirTWkeEJ2jRd0gB45b7jZDwgAADgx0=
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:26:19 +0000
Message-ID: <DDC84727-1B5F-48AD-AC3F-DB9700838955@hueniverse.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>
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436654ABB1@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DDC847271B5F48ADAC3FDB9700838955hueniversecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 16:26:21 -0000

We should not leave this under specified. Picking an encoding for just Basic and just colon is simple enough.

EH

On Jun 15, 2012, at 19:17, "Mike Jones" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto: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> [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George Fletcher
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:48 AM
To: oauth@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth


_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth