Re: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and identification

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 18 August 2011 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EE621F85B1 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xx9xP1li7xUk for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5873D21F85AE for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4636 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2011 21:17:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.20) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 18 Aug 2011 21:17:59 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) with mapi; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:17:48 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: "Lu, Hui-Lan (Huilan)" <huilan.lu@alcatel-lucent.com>, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:16:29 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and identification
Thread-Index: AcxNWiAmwaoXWhpRRLSIm3Z69CEQXANudKkQALSSvmAAAWgcIA==
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345029DFAB5D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <4E317125.7080006@lodderstedt.net> <CA56CA21.1758B%eran@hueniverse.com> <CA+k3eCTguAGGC1xGuuA0Z2sRu7MNCdtsUnb-3V9vmz4CFwxBYw@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234502498CDD9@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <0E96A74B7DFCF844A9BE2A0BBE2C425F058F244272@USNAVSXCHMBSB3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <0E96A74B7DFCF844A9BE2A0BBE2C425F058F244272@USNAVSXCHMBSB3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and identification
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:17:50 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lu, Hui-Lan (Huilan) [mailto:huilan.lu@alcatel-lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:45 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Brian Campbell
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and
> identification
> 
> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> > Added to 2.4.1:
> >
> > client_secret
> >                 REQUIRED. The client secret. The client MAY omit the
> > parameter if the client secret
> >                 is an empty string.
> 
> I would suggest rewording the above as follows:
> client_secret
> 	REQUIRED unless it is an empty string. The client secret.

"unless its value is an empty string". Do people read this new text to mean OPTIONAL if not empty?

> > Added to 3.2.1:
> >
> >             A public client that was not issued a client password MAY use the
> >             'client_id' request parameter to identify itself when sending
> >             requests to the token endpoint.
> 
> It is difficult to parse the last sentence of 3.2.1: "The security ramifications of
> allowing unauthenticated access by public clients to the token endpoint
> MUST be considered, as well as the issuance of refresh tokens to public
> clients, their scope, and lifetime."
> 
> I think it should be rewritten and reference relevant parts of security
> considerations.

Text?

EHL