IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Thu, 10 June 2010 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.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 B662D28C15A for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.257
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.720, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 RgGzARx8bdWs for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3693A6993 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o5AHcvHE007617 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:38:57 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1276191539; bh=1XkT+/Yuq1Pi2JiwDuxM+glCxbU=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=v0l81OmfFvesMVf+vBMJJ77aCYy+v+kyjy/vQ9gSfHO0ehK/11lcJtP3pWzEhW/ah +JTEgQkDWOfxY3cgH3MYg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=WAOVq4gv3XCCDdUbZgE/x4sr3awl04XSwnN9Dn6y8AhKHy5OZ1Ps3L1OfrqsJ2K9S uhqVpD9/K2m+A3JM3C60A==
Received: from pxi6 (pxi6.prod.google.com [10.243.27.6]) by wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o5AHcted030000 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:38:56 -0700
Received: by pxi6 with SMTP id 6so76526pxi.29 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.4.4 with SMTP id g4mr335090rvi.269.1276191535519; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.124.13 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimz_V33JnJWsh_jgKoeGgAj1bhYhfge6-C86rJ2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTilcANtf9WsFh4jJPUBkbCu5x2doTMQEr4_h_Rys@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EAF729E@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTimz_V33JnJWsh_jgKoeGgAj1bhYhfge6-C86rJ2@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:38:35 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin5h1gtVt3CJUjaUB56w2Ku3nJODyfo91dF9J7b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Lindner <lindner@inuus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests
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: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:39:01 -0000

I run into the same issue. In section "4.2. URI Query Parameter", it
would help if the parameter name, oauth_token, was different from
OAuth 1.

Marius



On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Paul Lindner <lindner@inuus.com> wrote:
> I am talking about the resource server. Specifically I want to be able to
> quickly determine if an incoming request is 1.0a vs 2.0.  And since this is
> a library it can't make a lot of assumptions about the specific environment
> it's running in.
> At first I thought I would check the oauth_version parameter.  It turns out
> the 1.0a spec says that it is optional.  The only one that is required for
> 1.0a is oauth_signature_method.
> Sadly we're long past time to change the spec to optimize for this use-case.
>  (It would have been better to have a parameter for oauth 2.0 that is
> distinct from 1.0a)  At the very least this message will live on in the
> mailing list archives -- at best we document the proper way to distinguish
> between the two versions somewhere.
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The request is very different on the resource server. On the authorization
>> server, why would you use the same endpoint?
>>
>>
>>
>> EHL
>>
>>
>>
>> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Paul Lindner
>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:24 AM
>> To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> As I've been working through our oauth2 implementation I've noticed that
>> it's not easy to disambiguate OAuth 1.0a vs 2.0 API calls based on the
>> request parameters alone.   Based on some investigative at the Shindig
>> project it appears that the only standard way to to determine 1.0a vs 2.0 is
>> by checking for the oauth_signature_method parameter.  More info here:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1361
>>
>>
>>
>> Has anyone else considered this use case?  How did you solve it?
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status