Maybe I misunderstood your position. If you agree that '\' may not occur in
the INPUT string, then that issue can be closed. That was the working group
consensus position, per the cited e-mails. I thought that you were arguing
that syntax restrictions on the parameters should only be placed upon the
OUTPUT string - which forces all implementations to support unnecessary
encodings like "\a\b\c" for "abc". Please let me know whether you're fine with
the working group prohibiting the use of '\' in the input string as the spec
presently currently does.
Happy New Year!
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de]
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 3:59 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Barry Leiba; Mark Nottingham; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: auth-param syntax, was: [OAUTH-WG] OK to post OAuth Bearer draft
15?
On 2011-12-31 00:19, Mike Jones wrote:
> I did already back the statement that this is the working group consensus
> with the e-mails attached in this note sent to you on December 12, 2011:
> - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08042.html
I replied in
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08043.html>:
"I'm not disagreeing with the decision not to allow "\" in the value.
What I'm disagreeing with is writing the ABNF in a way that will make it likely
for implementers to special-case OAuth parameters when they should not."
So you're citing a consensus for a related but different question. I recommend
to read the mailing thread to the end.
> As for your assertion that the specs are in conflict, yes, the Bearer spec
> includes a different decision than a RECOMMENDED clause in the HTTPbis spec
> (which was added after the Bearer text was already in place). However, it is
> not violating any MUST clauses in the HTTPbis spec. Given that no MUSTS are
> violated, I don't see it mandatory for this tension to be resolved in favor
> of one spec or the other in order for both to be approved as RFCs. I look
> forward to seeing that happen soon in both cases (and for the OAuth core spec
> as well).
As a matter of fact, the HTTPbis P7 text on considerations for new schemes
doesn't use any BCP14 keywords at all. That's on purpose, because we think they
should be used with care, and in particular that they should only be used to
discuss the protocol, not the style of other specifications.
So it's really not relevant; what's essential is the intent of the spec text,
and I believe that is VERY clear:
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.
(Note the "cannot").
So again, if you disagree with this statement, please argue your case in the
HTTPbis WG.
If you *do* agree, but somehow feel that the bearer spec can't do this, the
bearer spec should document the reason (just like when an implementation fails
to implement a SHOULD).
As to the question of timing (when certain paragraphs were added): yes, HTTPbis
P7 changed based on feedback and review of the OAuth bearer spec (triggered by
James Manger). That's a feature.
If it hadn't, for instance, the bearer spec wouldn't conform to the base
grammar *at all*. See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/195>.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
