IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Split the authorization endpoint into two endpoints

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Fri, 16 April 2010 21:15 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 D6D6D3A69FD for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 7GReCiQX5l4J for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02433A6898 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3GLEZn0007650 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:14:35 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1271452476; bh=PuJKLF2MXlAt2jwdBHZrs3B62IM=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=IgTZ0KD6qpPErA4R7nEaDTufalweOV3HUU8GBcKkzPc0KKjBCWjeOghtlGmTkAI9q evFkm26MEPdxktFsoIYdw==
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:x-system-of-record; b=Vv1coNjpO3bmJGnSeF0XcRADstm7K6rcr2mM4kOXYpi14c5UXe70zhu+oAkVG2e9R 3GALox/128a6lFgyWDRuQ==
Received: from pzk16 (pzk16.prod.google.com [10.243.19.144]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3GLEXZQ004174 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:14:34 -0700
Received: by pzk16 with SMTP id 16so704925pzk.22 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.107.2 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2513A610118CC14C8E622C376C8DEC93D54D66DCF7@SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com>
References: <C7ECABE0.32344%eran@hueniverse.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11257481003@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <9E18821D-E128-468A-9778-9D9D049B716F@jkemp.net> <2513A610118CC14C8E622C376C8DEC93D54D66DCF7@SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:14:13 -0700
Received: by 10.140.251.9 with SMTP id y9mr2505662rvh.276.1271452473281; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <s2z74caaad21004161414vcc6f3305odb606fff1a94a53a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Split the authorization endpoint into two endpoints
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:15:02 -0000

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com> wrote:
> I guess I would prefer two URLs as well, but I see the simplicity argument as well:
>
>>> Constraints for endpoints:
>>> access token URL: HTTPS and POST only, no user
>>> user authentication URL: HTTP or HTTPS, GET or POST, authenticated user
>
> In either case, we should not restrict the access token URL to POST-only. A GET request is just as secure and can be much easier to write code for (just construct the URL and ping, no need to figure out CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS).

If you are using GET, then refresh tokens and client secrets will end
up side by side in web server log files.

Marius

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email