Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split

If the challenge uses the OAuth2 scheme, and the client tries OAuth2-Bearer to authenticate and fails, which scheme should the server use in its reply to include an error message? OAuth2, OAuth2-Bearer, both?

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:10 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
> 
> Eran,
> 
> > How would you suggest we define a general purpose www-authenticate
> > header that does not have a matching request header?
> 
> Why would that be a problem?
> We define what a "WWW-Authenticate: OAuth2 ..." response header
> means, but don't define any meaning for a "Authorization: OAuth2 ..."
> request header.
> No other scheme should define a meaning for "Authorization: OAuth2 ...".
> Consequently, the bearer token spec need to choose a different scheme
> name (eg "BEARER" or "TOKEN" or "EXTERNAL") so it can define request &
> response headers.
> 
> There is even some precedent for this. draft-broyer-http-cookie-auth
> defines "WWW-Authenticate: COOKIE ...", without any matching request
> header.
> I think there have also been ideas to define something like "WWW-
> Authenticate: TLS ..." to indicate when authentication at a lower layer (TLS,
> IPsec) is required. Again there was no matching "Authorization: TLS ..."
> header.
> 
> --
> James Manger
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth