IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Change grant_type="none" to something less confusing

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Sat, 17 July 2010 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08ED23A69C8 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kz3S4-5Ax3f6 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 241CA3A69C6 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31702 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2010 19:52:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.21) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 17 Jul 2010 19:52:10 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT003.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.21]) with mapi; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:52:10 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:51:54 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Change grant_type="none" to something less confusing
Thread-Index: Acsl6YqHbH1cJs5CSgawf+rpVY/XEA==
Message-ID: <81CECB0D-6AFE-4E21-9211-86648FC6EAA8@hueniverse.com>
References: <1279297826.11628.61.camel@localhost.localdomain> <AANLkTinRE0My8GRTVrBM9cwyCWgrpeYQzul3YBp_Z-8A@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim_GpxKx2G6FQN9TGwMYxnRv4N7pOo7Yo3g2s6c@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinDwGDYq4IYA9BKJakdEMnR8FbruTqR4i_zS88p@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinbbIJ03UPFWibPJC569ckseU33Tnyf-1BYRGj2@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimfdpugQSgTMUPtLy-xOMIB-dJ4E8IMzB5EwU6R@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTintmqhY1PY51h4DcXEI0r3FQmIB92pP3vykPQrw@mail.gmail.com> <3AF1FD6F-2178-42ED-833C-D93C534DDA8A@hueniverse.com> <AANLkTindn2UOcqWz410_UnyAORe58_XpXQKcy5sMt_pF@mail.gmail.com> <AA83846D-1817-4B51-9F3E-CA9DD91862D6@facebook.com> <AANLkTinrz-KCjHpeUCnDpJhRGRCHoY_nl3fKgNgivoxi@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinrz-KCjHpeUCnDpJhRGRCHoY_nl3fKgNgivoxi@mail.gmail.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 WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Change grant_type="none" to something less confusing
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:51:59 -0000

client_credentials worked fine before. I'll just replace none with that. No one had an issue with the name in -05. 

EHL



On Jul 17, 2010, at 15:49, Brian Eaton <beaton@google.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com> wrote:
>> As far as consistency, it is just a little weird to call it "client password" in one
>> part of the spec, when it's defined as "client secret" elsewhere.
> 
> Agreed, we could be more consistent.  The value we're talking about is
> the same in all of the flows, no sense in switching terminology.
> 
> I prefer client_password, because "password", for me, evokes all the
> right kinds of security concerns.  Password storage, encryption on the
> wire, etc...
> 
> I'm less happy with client_secret, though I can certainly live with
> it.  My main concern with client_secret is that people might confuse
> it with a signing secret.  The value is not used for signing.  If we
> are going to have flows where clients have secrets that are used for
> cryptographic authentication, then I would want to call those "keys"
> instead.
> 
>> How about just "client_only" ?
> 
> That would be fine by me.

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status