Re: [OAUTH-WG] Reconciling section 2.2 with 3.2.1
Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> Mon, 13 February 2012 06:13 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 3862D21F8655 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:13:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 SVU08uMvZ-PF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:12:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8817C21F8559 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 30455 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2012 06:12:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 13 Feb 2012 06:12:23 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:12:18 -0700
From: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Andrew Arnott <andrewarnott@gmail.com>, "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:12:14 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Reconciling section 2.2 with 3.2.1
Thread-Index: AczqBxObK4zqloR/QMyyYvjlhUexqQADxlxA
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453AADDD762@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <CAE358b7FQJoP-JLUUpoWMOrQZ8oSGeM6WWEtyUtj0wbvMGNNtw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE358b7FQJoP-JLUUpoWMOrQZ8oSGeM6WWEtyUtj0wbvMGNNtw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453AADDD762P3PW5EX1MB01E_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Reconciling section 2.2 with 3.2.1
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: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:13:06 -0000
Identification isn't authentication. A public client can identify itself for the purpose of providing user context, statistics, etc. EH From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Arnott Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:22 PM To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Reconciling section 2.2 with 3.2.1 Can anyone please help me understand how these two sentences do not contradict? >From section 2.2 Client Identifier The client identifier is not a secret, it is exposed to the resource owner, and MUST NOT be used alone for client authentication. >From section 3.2.1 Client Authentication 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. Thanks. -- Andrew Arnott "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre
- [OAUTH-WG] Reconciling section 2.2 with 3.2.1 Andrew Arnott
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Reconciling section 2.2 with 3.2.1 Eran Hammer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Reconciling section 2.2 with 3.2.1 Andrew Arnott