Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:46:43 -0800

The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG
(oauth) to consider the following document:
- 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens'
  <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-02-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This specification describes how to use bearer tokens in HTTP
   requests to access OAuth 2.0 protected resources.  Any party in
   possession of a bearer token (a "bearer") can use it to get access to
   the associated resources (without demonstrating possession of a
   cryptographic key).  To prevent misuse, bearer tokens need to be
   protected from disclosure in storage and in transport.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:58:09 +0100

On 2012-01-23 16:46, The IESG wrote:
> ...

Please see my comments in 
<https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08120.html> 
which I think have not been addressed.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:24:24 +0000

As editor of the Oauth Bearer spec, I believe that these comments have been well understood and considered by the working group.  I do understand that the working group's consensus position is different than Julian's.  See these notes documenting that this is the case:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08113.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08116.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08121.html

				Best wishes,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 7:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: The IESG; [email-masked]; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard

On 2012-01-23 16:46, The IESG wrote:
>    <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt>  as a Proposed Standard ...

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:39:12 +0100

> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08121.html

We are going in circles; see 
<https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08118.html>.

I can only recommend that people who want to know what's going on read 
the complete mail thread.

Also I'd like to point out that I *did* recommend to go to IETF LC 
despite these issues because I believe that more review from outside the 
WG is needed here.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:44:35 +0000

Resending including [email-masked], per the advice of Cindy Morgan of the IESG Secretariat...

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Julian Reschke; The IESG; [email-masked]; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard

				Best wishes,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 7:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: The IESG; [email-masked]; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:23:48 +0100

> which I think have not been addressed.

In an off-list conversation I heard that what I said before may not be 
as clear as it could be.

So...

1) draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15 defines a new HTTP authentication scheme.

2) In the IANA considerations, it references the registration procedure 
defined in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17#section-2.3> 
(now -18, but that doesn't matter here).

3) That document recommends in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17#section-2.3.1>:

    o  The parsing of challenges and credentials is defined by this
       specification, and cannot be modified by new authentication
       schemes.  When the auth-param syntax is used, all parameters ought
       to support both token and quoted-string syntax, and syntactical
       constraints ought to be defined on the field value after parsing
       (i.e., quoted-string processing).  This is necessary so that
       recipients can use a generic parser that applies to all
       authentication schemes.

4) draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15 ignores this recommendation. It has 
been mentioned that it might not have ignored it if it had UPPERCASE 
requirements, but in HTTPbis we try to restrict BCP14 keywords to the 
actual protocol, not on recommendations on other specs.

5) The registration requirement for a new scheme is "IETF review", which 
RFC 5226 defines in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1> as:

       IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in
             [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through
             RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
             Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978].  The
             intention is that the document and proposed assignment will
             be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or
             experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to
             ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively
             impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols
             in an inappropriate or damaging manner.

In this case the WG exists (it's HTTPbis), and the OAuth got two reviews 
from HTTPbis pointing out the problem  -- from Mark Nottingham, the WG 
chair, and myself, one of the authors.

And yes, I believe the way OAuth defines the syntax *will* impact 
interoperability.

Also, I haven't seen any explanation why OAuth can not follow the 
recommendation from HTTPbis.

Hope this clarifies things,

Julian

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:45:12 +0000

(Resending now that I'm a member of the [email-masked] list so that my note will appear there.)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Julian Reschke; The IESG; [email-masked]; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard

				Best wishes,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 7:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: The IESG; [email-masked]; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Eran Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:23:51 -0700

I fully agree with Julian's perspective. I believe there is sufficient feedback requiring further review of this issue. If the editor cannot facilitate a path forward, I request the chairs to intervene. 

I will make sure this feedback is fully applied to the MAC token specification in the next draft.

EHL

> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:24 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: The IESG; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The
> OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol: Bearer Tokens) to Proposed Standard
> 
> In an off-list conversation I heard that what I said before may not be as clear
> as it could be.
> 
> So...
> 
> defined in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17#section-
> 2.3>
> 4) draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15 ignores this recommendation. It has been
> mentioned that it might not have ignored it if it had UPPERCASE
> requirements, but in HTTPbis we try to restrict BCP14 keywords to the actual
> protocol, not on recommendations on other specs.
> 
> 5) The registration requirement for a new scheme is "IETF review", which RFC
> 5226 defines in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1> as:
> 
> In this case the WG exists (it's HTTPbis), and the OAuth got two reviews from
> HTTPbis pointing out the problem  -- from Mark Nottingham, the WG chair,
> and myself, one of the authors.
>