Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth and HTTP caching

On the server side, one of the concerns in the past has been security in
shared hosting systems where e.g., basic auth data should be handled by a
secure container (Apache) and not passed on in raw form to hosted CGI
scripts.  So some of this comes back to what minimum level of hosting should
be targeted by the specification -- and how much it should bend over
backwards to deal with "challenged" environments.

My $.02 is that we should follow the HTTP spec (Authorization: and
WWW-Authenticate:) and take a minimum distance path to route around limited
environments if necessary (X-Authorization: and X-WWW-Authenticate:, with
exactly the same content, would be my proposal).

--
John Panzer / Google
jpanzer@google.com / abstractioneer.org <http://www.abstractioneer.org/> /
@jpanzer



On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>wrote:

> As currently written, OAuth use of the HTTP authentication headers is
> optional at best.
>
> The reason for that was based on concerns that some platforms do not
> provide access to the HTTP header in either the request or the reply.
> However, this might have significant ramifications on caching and other
> parts of HTTP where an indication of an authenticate interaction is needed.
>
> Before the OAuth WG spends any time on discussing the various methods of
> sending authentication parameters, I would like to find out if using the
> authentication headers is more of a requirement for such a protocol.
>
> EHL
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>