So it's been pointed out to me that percent encoding like this would
break any clients that already have % in their client_id who are using
the Basic auth. My question to the group is: how many of these are out
there, really? Do we really have to worry about them? Right now, those
are just hyptothetical, whereas clients with a : are real.
Considering there already are (at the moment, technically noncompliant)
clients using : who aren't using basic that we're definitely trying to
support (otherwise this issue wouldn't be coming up), I would argue in
favor of the known-existence side as opposed to the potential-existence
side. Which is to say, use percent encoding (which is established and
referenceable from another spec) and call it a day.
What *really* bothers me about the strawman proposal is that it's making
up a new, arbitrary encoding mechanism for one corner case. This is such
a tiny and oddly specific-to-OAuth2 thing that my gut instinct tells me
this is going to be either:
1) ignored
2) implemented wrong
3) coupled with some other encoding mechanism for people who want to
do other things like internationalization
-- Justin
On 06/15/2012 02:15 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
Why not percent encoding for just colon and percent?
-- Justin
On 06/15/2012 01:30 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
I was asked a question off-list, which I think is worth answering
on-line. The question was: Why the Tab character, rather than
%-encoding?
Introducing % encoding would break all existing OAuth 2.0 deployments
using HTTP Basic. A non-starter...
Tab is legal in HTTP Basic but not in URLs or presently client_ids.
It's also a character that can be visibly rendered in an acceptable
manner for debugging. The other choices were CR and LF, which are
also legal in HTTP Basic but wouldn't render very nicely. ;-)
Cheers,
-- Mike
*From:*Mike Jones
*Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2012 9:30 AM
*To:* 'Eran Hammer'
*Cc:* George Fletcher; [email protected]
*Subject:* RE: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re:
Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions
I agree with Eran that I prefer that this not be underspecified and
that an encoding for just colon for just Basic will suffice.
I'd suggested the encoding s/:/<tab>/g as a strawman. Are there any
other encoding proposals?
-- Mike
*From:*Eran Hammer [mailto:[email protected]]
<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]>
*Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2012 9:26 AM
*To:* Mike Jones
*Cc:* George Fletcher; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re:
Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions
We should not leave this under specified. Picking an encoding for
just Basic and just colon is simple enough.
EH
On Jun 15, 2012, at 19:17, "Mike Jones" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Based on use cases I'm seeing, believe it's important to allow
the use of URIs as client_id values (which means allowing ":" in
the client_id string). I'm OK with us either specifying a
specific encoding when using them in Basic or simply saying that
"When client_ids are used with HTTP Basic that contain characters
such as ":" not allowed in HTTP Basic usernames, then the
participants will need to agree upon a method of encoding the
client_id for use with HTTP Basic.
-- Mike
*From:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]]
<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> *On Behalf Of *George
Fletcher
*Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2012 8:48 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re:
Discussion needed on username and password ABNF definitions
+1 for a simple encoding and allowing ':' in the client_id
On 6/13/12 6:53 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 14.06.2012 06:40, John Bradley wrote:
That would probably work as well. That is why I am not particularly
concerned about excluding the :
We originally used the URI itself, mostly for convenience of
debugging, but there are other potential options.
The authorization server needs to compare the client_id and the
redirect uri. But it could compare the hash with not much more work.
Also a sha256 hash is probably longer than the uri it is hashing.
I am not super concerned with being able to have : in the client_id
John B.
If I'm following all these threads correctly the only explicit
problem with URI in client_id is HTTP username field being :
terminated.
As such it does not have to be a hash per-se, just an encoding
that removes ":" and other reserved characters from the on-wire
form *when sent via HTTP*.
AYJ
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
