ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OAUTH-WG] oauth-bearer and rfc 2617/httpbis authentication framework

2012-07-23 06:34:13

Hiya,

On 07/23/2012 08:56 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-07-23 00:33, Stephen Farrell wrote:

Hi all,

I'd like to check that some recent minor changes to this
document [1] don't cause technical or process-grief.

The version [2] of the oauth bearer draft that underwent
IETF LC and IESG evaluation had a normative dependency
on the httpbis wg's authentication framework. [3]

After resolving IESG discuss positions the authors and
wg chairs felt that it would be better to replace the
normative reference to the httpbis wg draft [3] with one
to RFC 2617 [4] so that the OAuth drafts wouldn't be held
in the RFC editor queue waiting on the httpbis wg to get
done.

I believe there is no impact on interop resulting from
this change but there has been some disagreement about
making it and how it was made. After some offlist discussion
I think we now have an RFC editor note [5] that means that
the current scheme of referring to RFC 2617 is ok.
...

Quoting:

NEW:

   The "Authorization" header for this scheme follows the usage
   of the Basic scheme [RFC2617]. Note that, as with Basic, this
   is compatible with the the general authentication framework
   being developed for HTTP 1.1 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-p7-auth], though
   does not follow the preferred practice outlined therein in
   order to reflect existing deployments. The syntax for Bearer
   credentials is as follows:

That helps, but it still hides the fact that the syntax is not
compatible with the RFC 2617 framework.

"hides" isn't a goal:-)

Also, s/header/header field/

Proposal:

"The syntax of the "Authorization" header field for this scheme follows
the usage of the Basic scheme defined in Section 2 of [RFC2617]. Note
that, as with Basic, it does not conform to the generic syntax defined
in Section 1.2 of [RFC2617], but that it is compatible with the the
general authentication framework being developed for HTTP 1.1
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p7-auth], although it does not follow the preferred
practice outlined therein in order to reflect existing deployments.

The syntax for Bearer credentials is as follows: ..."

That looks better. I've updated the RFC editor note to
use your text.

Thanks,
S.


Best regards, Julian





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>