Re: [OAUTH-WG] WGLC for OAuth 2.0 Device Flow for Browserless and Input Constrained Devices

Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com> Sat, 16 December 2017 07:12 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir@connect2id.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 1697C1241F5 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:12:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kAAoDLOwzeZC for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa11-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa11-04.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4119D120725 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 23:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.107] ([78.130.190.73]) by :SMTPAUTH: with SMTP id Q6dxecHX6jkV9Q6dye0vqX; Sat, 16 Dec 2017 00:12:22 -0700
To: William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
References: <CAGL6epLJHUn+4E1jksJW=Zpu=DE84uQgARhHyPH3H8yAAkijOg@mail.gmail.com> <4e14a1ec-8b6d-476b-3949-8a0b63017232@connect2id.com> <CAAP42hBY74goaNvJBb0yQ9AG4aQAmyVGxJFxHrUYtDdefouEJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com>
Organization: Connect2id Ltd.
Message-ID: <b123d697-25ae-43df-2ef9-388c0adfdb92@connect2id.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 09:12:20 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAP42hBY74goaNvJBb0yQ9AG4aQAmyVGxJFxHrUYtDdefouEJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms090002090208090803040805"
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfFcrTxqwqbfRElQ/q+Fo+Gi3ylb8uJLL1MkBAY9/qOpHos1TLZzKb6VcyS241yL6Pp4Xjlt6pmoGOt21V3JHeutCmdhz7UIezLCNhnZY9jxwjSRbi7jI EWizXi84YyuIlcs7j5+I2REWgJdEFfK23m40gk+8yJIBsCxKalH1hrn36ottK5TChMhMlQW0Jp2zyDUcV9rhu9JMUycGFs8ydys=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/wNXqnIS1dAtIyTJlpymP5RkzEw8>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] WGLC for OAuth 2.0 Device Flow for Browserless and Input Constrained Devices
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 07:12:25 -0000

On 15/12/17 00:43, William Denniss wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just got a question on Twitter about the slow_down error:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-07#section-3.5
>>
>> The question was why slow_down is communicated via HTTP status code 400
>> and not 429 (Too Many Requests).
>>
> We could, it seems to match the intent of that error code. Main reason it's
> not like that so far is that 400 is the default for OAuth, I fear people
> may not be checking for a 429. We don't strictly *need* the 429, since
> we're returning data in machine readable format one way or another (i.e.
> it's easy for the client to extract the "slow_down" response either way),
> which differs from HTML over HTTP which is intended for end-user
> consumption, making the specific status code more important.
Yes, on a 400 clients will need to check the error JSON object anyway,
so the "slow_down" cannot be missed. Whereas with 429 that becomes more
likely.

+1 to return "slow_down" with status 400 as it is with the other OAuth
error codes.

Vladimir