This then goes back to one of my original posts which is - Is www-authenticate legal on a non-401 response? I honestly don't know.
From: William Mills [mailto:wmi...@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 3:30 PM To: Yaron Goland; Torsten Lodderstedt Cc: OAuth WG Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth discovery draft? In the SASL stuff I'm working on I was presuming I'd use the WWW-Authenticate header for returning the discovery info. ________________________________ From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaron Goland Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 3:10 PM To: Torsten Lodderstedt Cc: OAuth WG Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth discovery draft? I believe that GET should be used to return the resource's state and its OAuth token endpoint is just a tiny part of that state. When we want to return part of the state we typically use either explicit headers (a la byte ranges) or a query parameter. Content-types should, I think, just control the syntax of what is returned, not the subset of data it contains. So I have to admit that I really don't like using GET for this sort of scenario. OPTIONS is actually the officially blessed way to walk up to a resource, knock on the front door and ask 'what are you and what can you do?' So it seems to me we should start with OPTIONS. But this does bring up a problem - nobody ever really defined a response body for OPTIONS. RFC 2616 explicitly defined the legality of such a body but no standard was defined for what the body should look like. This is an issue because if someone does define a body for OPTIONS then they really need to do so in a way that other standards can build on top of. So we have a choice when it comes to using OPTIONS. We can return data in the header in which case all we have to do is just define the header, submit the RFC and call it day. Or we can use the body but in that case we probably need to write one spec to define a generic way to return data in OPTIONS response bodies (e.g. how do different OPTIONS responses live together?) and get that standardized. Then we can write a second RFC to define how our specific data would be carried in OPTIONS. Thoughts? Yaron From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 11:09 PM To: Yaron Goland Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; James Manger; OAuth WG Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth discovery draft? I think it should be possible to discover a resource's OAuth server and its capabilities using a direct Discovery request. I don't think a WWW-Authenticate Header is the right representation for this kind of data. What about a JSON or XML document returned in response to an OPTIONS request (as you suggested) or a GET request with a certain content type in its ACCEPT Header? regards, Torsten. Am 23.06.2010 um 20:20 schrieb Yaron Goland <yar...@microsoft.com<mailto:yar...@microsoft.com>>: No objections on my part. I would rather have a smaller core spec with features that everyone agrees on. BTW, a thought for the discovery draft - RFC 2616/2617 only defines www-authenticate's semantics in the context of a 401. It's unclear from the draft what it would mean to return a www-authenticate header on a 200 response. The reason I care about this is that I think it makes sense that if someone wants to talk to an endpoint they know supports OAuth and need to know where their token issuer location is they would want to fire off an OPTIONS request to the resource and find out from the response where the issuer is and what realm is being used. It seems to me that the simplest way to solve this problem is to just return www-authenticate on a 200 response to an OPTIONS request. Thoughts? Thanks, Yaron From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:04 AM To: Yaron Goland; James Manger; OAuth WG Subject: Re: OAuth discovery draft? I think the core work is pretty stable now, unlike the discovery bits which (while simple) are not enjoying the same level of consensus. I think it is much more practical to propose them as a separate document and perhaps consider merging them later on when they reach an equal level of stability. But overall, I'm not too worries about multiple documents. EHL On 6/23/10 11:00 AM, "Yaron Goland" <yar...@microsoft.com<mailto:yar...@microsoft.com>> wrote: I've been noodling [1] a lot about full delegation in OAuth [2] and one of the issues that came out of that was the need for discovering both the location and realm of an endpoint's token server. But at least for my use cases (which consist of walking up to a service and making an options request and getting back a www-authenticate header) all I need back is a realm and a token server URL. In other words just having one argument added to our www-authenticate header would be enough to solve the case where someone wants to walk up to a service and find out where its token server is. Does that really need its own spec? Or can we just add an argument to www-authenticate in the current spec? Thanks, Yaron [1] See http://www.goland.org/oauthgenericdelegation/ for an overview of my thinking on full delegation in OAuth. At the very end are links to a bunch of other much more in-depth articles on particular subjects touched on in the main article. [2] I define 'full delegation' as "User X of Service Y grants permission Z to User A of Service B". Currently OAuth requires X == A. In the future I hope to see extensions to OAuth that enable what I'm terming 'full delegation'. But personally I'm really happy that OAuth has the X==A restriction. It simplifies a whole host of issues and satisfies a really important use case. > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org> > [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Eran Hammer-Lahav > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 9:50 PM > To: Manger, James H; OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>) > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth discovery draft? > > Yes, it's on my desk and not yet ready, but I am working on one. It includes > your sites proposal among other things. I am trying to get the core spec > stable this week and focus on that next. > > EHL > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Manger, James H [mailto:james.h.man...@team.telstra.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 8:03 PM > > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>) > > Subject: OAuth discovery draft? > > > > Eran, > > > > There have been a few mentions recently of an OAuth discovery draft. > > Is there any such draft yet, or is this just a part that we know needs > > to be done? > > > > The email on "OAuth meeting notes on -05 (with updates)" said: > > > > >> 6.1.1. - describing the WWW-Authenticate response header > > >> > > >> - Discovery needed for various elements > > > > > > Yes. That's for the discovery draft. > > > > > > A wiki page on "Future OpenID Technical Requirements" > > <http://wiki.openid.net/Future-OpenID-Technical-Requirements> says: > > > > > 6) IdP Discovery > > > > > > * Much of this will be covered by OAuth2 Discovery, > > > however OIC may need to define OpenID specific features. > > >... > > > 17) Simpler discovery > > > > > > * See Eran's OAuth Discovery proposal > > > > > > There was an OAuth 1.0 Discovery draft over 2 years ago, but that is tagged: > > "expired", "marked as obsolete by its author", "discouraged from > > implementing", "no update is expected", "replaced by the OAuth 2.0 > effort". > > > > I know I should write a discovery draft myself. > > > > -- > > James Manger > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
