[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for a New 2617 Scheme: Token



> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:33 PM

> I think that reasoning is wrong. Different "realm" values can indicate
> different credential groups if necessary (username vs token) while
> using the same scheme.
> 
> RFC 2617 "HTTP Authentication" explicitly states:
>   "Note that there may be multiple challenges with the same auth-scheme
> but
>    different realms."
> 
> A server can quite legitimately return:
>   401 Unauthenticated
>   WWW-Authentication: BASIC realm="User access"
>   WWW-Authentication: BASIC realm="Delegated app access"

While it is an interesting idea, I think it is bad design. How is a client supposed to know what to do with this? What is the value of reusing Basic or Digest here? Digest has failed adoption and Basic provides practically zero value. I think this will cause confusion and problems with existing deployments with no real benefits.

EHL

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.