Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How to handle Bearer Authentication using a JMS Header? #920

Open
adamretter opened this issue Apr 3, 2023 · 7 comments
Open

How to handle Bearer Authentication using a JMS Header? #920

adamretter opened this issue Apr 3, 2023 · 7 comments
Labels
❔ Question A question about the spec or processes

Comments

@adamretter
Copy link

adamretter commented Apr 3, 2023

The securitySchemes mechanism of AsyncAPI 2.6.0 spec does not seem compatible with the idea of sending an Auth token (e.g. similar to Bearer Authentication) in a header when using the JMS protocol. The 2.6.0 version of the spec seems to restrict this to HTTP only for some reason.

I would like to be able to achieve something like:

securitySchemes:
  bearerAuthentication:
    type: apiKey
    in: header
    name: AuthenticationToken
    description: Bearer Authentication Token should be provided in the `AuthenticationToken` header.

Thoughts on how I can achieve this, or should I contribute an update to the spec?

@adamretter adamretter added the ❔ Question A question about the spec or processes label Apr 3, 2023
@adamretter adamretter changed the title How to handle Bearer Authentication using a JMS Header How to handle Bearer Authentication using a JMS Header? Apr 3, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 2, 2023

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Aug 2, 2023
@adamretter
Copy link
Author

I would still like a response to this if possible?

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale label Aug 3, 2023
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 1, 2023

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Dec 1, 2023
@adamretter
Copy link
Author

Can someone reply to this please?

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale label Dec 2, 2023
Copy link

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Mar 31, 2024
@adamretter
Copy link
Author

Id still like some feedback on this

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale label Apr 1, 2024
@Shimork04
Copy link

Shimork04 commented Sep 1, 2024

I noticed that the current securitySchemes mechanism in AsyncAPI 2.6.0 seems to limit sending an Auth token in a header (similar to Bearer Authentication) to the HTTP protocol only. For use cases like JMS, it would be valuable to extend this capability.

I'm looking to achieve something like:

securitySchemes:
bearerAuthentication:
type: apiKey
in: header
name: AuthenticationToken
description: Bearer Authentication Token should be provided in the AuthenticationToken header.

Is there a recommended way to implement this with the current spec, or should we consider updating the spec to support this for protocols beyond HTTP?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
❔ Question A question about the spec or processes
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants