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

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

I was asked a question off-list, which I think is worth answering on-line.  The question was:  Why the Tab character, rather than %-encoding?

Introducing % encoding would break all existing OAuth 2.0 deployments using HTTP Basic.  A non-starter...

Tab is legal in HTTP Basic but not in URLs or presently client_ids.  It's also a character that can be visibly rendered in an acceptable manner for debugging.  The other choices were CR and LF, which are also legal in HTTP Basic but wouldn't render very nicely. ;-)

                                                            Cheers,
                                                            -- Mike

From: Mike Jones
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 9:30 AM
To: 'Eran Hammer'
Cc: George Fletcher; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re: Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions

I agree with Eran that I prefer that this not be underspecified and that an encoding for just colon for just Basic will suffice.

I'd suggested the encoding s/:/<tab>/g as a strawman.  Are there any other encoding proposals?

                                                            -- Mike

From: Eran Hammer [mailto:[e-mail]]<mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 9:26 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: George Fletcher; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re: Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions

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" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]]<mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]> On Behalf Of George Fletcher
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:48 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth


_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth