IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 10 June 2010 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.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 49DED3A6993 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.723
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.723 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.876, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 KJN+gMNlDvBA for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 52CB23A698A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 29670 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2010 17:42:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.20) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 10 Jun 2010 17:42:29 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) with mapi; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:42:27 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>, Paul Lindner <lindner@inuus.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:42:21 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests
Thread-Index: AcsIw9Gn6Lt+wXM2SeiMNbCttZrHvQAAGSRg
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EAF7328@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <AANLkTilcANtf9WsFh4jJPUBkbCu5x2doTMQEr4_h_Rys@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3EAF729E@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTimz_V33JnJWsh_jgKoeGgAj1bhYhfge6-C86rJ2@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin5h1gtVt3CJUjaUB56w2Ku3nJODyfo91dF9J7b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin5h1gtVt3CJUjaUB56w2Ku3nJODyfo91dF9J7b@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests
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: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:42:29 -0000

But in that case, all the other oauth_* parameters are missing. It's trivial.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marius Scurtescu [mailto:mscurtescu@google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:39 AM
> To: Paul Lindner
> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests
> 
> I run into the same issue. In section "4.2. URI Query Parameter", it would
> help if the parameter name, oauth_token, was different from OAuth 1.
> 
> Marius
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Paul Lindner <lindner@inuus.com> wrote:
> > I am talking about the resource server. Specifically I want to be able
> > to quickly determine if an incoming request is 1.0a vs 2.0.  And since
> > this is a library it can't make a lot of assumptions about the
> > specific environment it's running in.
> > At first I thought I would check the oauth_version parameter.  It
> > turns out the 1.0a spec says that it is optional.  The only one that
> > is required for 1.0a is oauth_signature_method.
> > Sadly we're long past time to change the spec to optimize for this use-case.
> >  (It would have been better to have a parameter for oauth 2.0 that is
> > distinct from 1.0a)  At the very least this message will live on in
> > the mailing list archives -- at best we document the proper way to
> > distinguish between the two versions somewhere.
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
> > <eran@hueniverse.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The request is very different on the resource server. On the
> >> authorization server, why would you use the same endpoint?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> EHL
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Paul Lindner
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:24 AM
> >> To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> >> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Identifying OAuth 2.0 vs 1.0 requests
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> As I've been working through our oauth2 implementation I've noticed
> >> that it's not easy to disambiguate OAuth 1.0a vs 2.0 API calls based
> >> on the request parameters alone.   Based on some investigative at the
> >> Shindig project it appears that the only standard way to to determine
> >> 1.0a vs 2.0 is by checking for the oauth_signature_method
> parameter.  More info here:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1361
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Has anyone else considered this use case?  How did you solve it?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> >

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status