Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification

William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com> Wed, 11 January 2012 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <wmills@yahoo-inc.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 66FB221F87FF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:02:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.284
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.284 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.314, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15]
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 GBNhsESSUJpd for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm11-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm11-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6901921F87EF for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [98.139.91.67] by nm11.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2012 00:02:22 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.14] by tm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2012 00:02:22 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1014.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2012 00:02:22 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 249472.79588.bm@omp1014.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 53687 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jan 2012 00:02:21 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=ginc1024; t=1326240141; bh=U3Ji+L+YD5BmAwB0kTK2LMGnRD3f89RoatcUsuQUIfo=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=g4v+6nVjhnocGWN/N2hfgpkCOmJykX5gvKcnbZg2tjkjDyq1Erc6reelD0yo3F6ftO0vY27wpKD8Ry3CNcxuioHpdQfYw8OSGB0NMbqrsFsUK9P5RrkMqKIBvNNX/llVZkywfhfrVcZXi43h1H5e699xANmhhrkxcvQsYQseF6A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=ginc1024; d=yahoo-inc.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-RocketYMMF:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ggnwb9obD+E6jIVcdnFa04x8vH55F8Pjtig7Q4umoyXDmy/y0Un2elHc1+qez041jaPaZu0XfITzqfgGARU1rXIIxjSLXwRZckFK6WTKZAnp+qTgbMZqF0Mbjyjvi9LDNgapfSiUZXdI7H+GFeovz04+IfruYnOewZcXrvcmw08=;
X-YMail-OSG: KuYkFCAVM1lVjCt5Z3MPFdI1WxeuyhScmAPOW14k6E1l2kd UMoPyNOliPE9U8KxUVvHXZTUB5qPPAwRitWcPPomG9nR4H9HeT2gyhh_ptFd _VqnEfIC13abW0ymSgGGZ.tGpUK4wxkmUroOStnjkhb1mZGbIvHnyLn0SwOK x7m4WHTOt6oXxQTXig3sE9FSi9dac3pHDlSvR6dvSamrSrU5NIJAnqGdDQvs ULYbcQWGK3n5oIfVc8yF81uSMpAmgtjRM1tayKvcafP4xohPIa83jWtg8FVm bUlf14.0eaei7820_lCONwlAJAu_cX9D6OdY_JD07naQWWPNqNYedCyQcZJk zx0B28Kbd5ZUGgurbvthbO6YrN0Saj6vPi23zHRsQD9Yi4rScP_LM_dGgFj6 u3piSZc9u3sqjHVxlOfRl7hXBzhaG3ylOVWx1lJ2cJxlgV57qETx4yXClKXB rs7fePF7lKn7gbpt6s2hEOgaZaCXdNjjdrIZeb36yF90nzp42huE-
Received: from [209.131.62.113] by web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:02:21 PST
X-RocketYMMF: william_john_mills
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.116.331537
References: <CAG+j4TrQGwiDj01huDgfEy+02b4=tTDYifiXcvhDHrw3i32-6Q@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120109070921.0aec8d00@resistor.net> <CAG+j4TrFoxvMMK_Bx=0e1qFLjUmKKaEmJD6hBnR06H6Fm75xfw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120109153323.0ab3bf80@resistor.net> <CAG+j4TpuO0N7n9xxB=3mh7EZhsjXDtB2DPa0S8BBJmhV_mv4Xw@mail.gmail.com> <1326156786.88572.YahooMailNeo@web31812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAG+j4TrUGtua8umh+GqJM_i6OeZrwHy7NwoGK1dTYGpHBuuV2Q@mail.gmail.com> <1326160314.71861.YahooMailNeo@web31806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAG+j4TrkXE_N6T35LaApswKJMRzNmBYbB_CnqUi37s6sK5nQAw@mail.gmail.com> <1326162276.40306.YahooMailNeo@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAG+j4TqhGi_0Z=C7gPbxAx6L7DV-NeLCewYyc4T-SbfdfWR=GA@mail.gmail.com> <1326215997.44445.YahooMailNeo@web31816.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120110104038.099f1ba8@resistor.net> <E300DA82-5DB9-4768-AF21-D30B15ECB4D0@oracle.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453A72D0F24@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Message-ID: <1326240141.98332.YahooMailNeo@web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:02:21 -0800 (PST)
From: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453A72D0F24@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="258328648-394140997-1326240141=:98332"
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: William Mills <wmills@yahoo-inc.com>
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: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:02:26 -0000

On your #1, I don't agree that an empty scope is useless.  There are comparable implementations that use an empty scope to be a wildcard scope.  I'd say, 


"The client can MAY include or omit the scope 
parameter. If omitted, the server must process the request using an empty scope as the default.  The server then processes the request either issuing a grant with it's default scope as defined by the server or failing the request indicating an invalid scope requested."

That language isn't quite right, but I think it's clear.



________________________________
 From: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification
 
I don't think the issue here is about the scope value, but who does the OPTIONAL designation applies to. IOW, is it optional for the server to support/require it, or is it optional for the client to include or omit it.

The intention was to make it optional for the authorization server to make all decisions about the parameter, including making it required. But the text is confusing since the text is aimed directly at the client when making the request.

We need to clarify this and the options are:

1. The client can decide if they want to include or omit the scope parameter. If omitted, the server must process the request using some documented default scope. This default scope can be an empty scope rendering the token useless for anything other than verifying user authentication.

2. The server can declare scope to be a required parameter in which case the client must include it or the request will fail. In this case, we should make the text clearer that clients to find out if the particular server requires it.

#1 is better for interoperability, #2 is more in the spirit of the parameter discussions so far.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Phil Hunt
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:33 AM
> To: SM
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in
> Specification
> 
> The underlying issue is that there was a decision not to in any way
> standardize values for scope.
> 
> I agreed this was reasonable since the underlying resource APIs are likely to
> be very specific requiring some degree of prior knowledge by the client app
> developer. Thus the resource server OAuth infrastructure is free to decide
> what are and are not acceptable values including missing or null values for
> scope.
> 
> I think the specification is acceptable as it is.
> 
> I note that other specifications that layer on top of OAuth2 such as OpenID
> Connect may choose to strictly define acceptable values for scope. This type
> of layering works well in my opinion.
> 
> Phil
> 
> @independentid
> www.independentid.com
> phil.hunt@oracle.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2012-01-10, at 10:56 AM, SM wrote:
> 
> > At 09:19 10-01-2012, William Mills wrote:
> >> That does clear it up!  If the implementation returns a proper error when
> the scope is omitted then it will be in conformance.  Sending an error result
> for the empty scope is valid.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > It is not possible to get a clear view of the specs if the discussion about
> "ambiguity" relies on the meaning of the word "OPTIONAL" only.  If there is a
> problem, then clarifying text could be used to fix it instead of changing the
> requirements.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -sm
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth