Justin, it's a useful data point that you already have clients with colon (":")
in client_id values (that work because you aren't using HTTP Basic). Thanks
for letting us know that.
For the record, I'd be fine if the working group decided that %-encoding of
client_id values when used with HTTP Basic was the right thing to do. The Tab
strawman was intended to break as few implementations as possible, but I fully
recognize that the set of implementations broken by using % for %-encoding may
well be the empty set.
Other's thoughts?
Cheers,
-- Mike
From: Justin Richer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:53 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic clients, URI, and stuff Re: Discussion needed
on username and password ABNF definitions
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]<mailto:[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]<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
