Re: [OAUTH-WG] Few questions about client_credentials

Sergey Beryozkin <> Thu, 01 March 2012 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA3F21E8373 for <>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:17:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Il8NaHVWMFWZ for <>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9F721E8374 for <>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:17:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so702042wgb.13 for <>; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass ( domain of designates as permitted sender) client-ip=;
Authentication-Results:; spf=pass ( domain of designates as permitted sender); dkim=pass
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id o6mr6418345wiy.19.1330640228773 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:17:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=v3QV1ZRSZBBTkXYFhOIfZ2s5yqpDB2WZQ993OJP7jLg=; b=s0+wJ9NGQB1XGMzQUC+lHdj+E1bIO+byV5zioQCLAjBwGvTM+FfFazyfxRVqLTat1b w+jU16yW4E/bRLNSIF5jsdNS/UwjioekRRYVt60RBXSh3FVkhxDx/YRDJjdo/85t7EJy lVNcDq8dqP8aO0PLrnHVLjluNKwCPb5h+gBmHny8t7ZrQdDuMWx/8iXbGxWBsJ2tBoR5 CEEP4QuRG2/gHIof9orILV0mwDFPuVVwNyWMVYZVTl+VO8verNtgmFYN+0aGxYekxMdn nQdB+UGSYVbXWElvCIwpHdBGUe8FgwWJc9Hqtu9J4P2Bx40q3w/c3WbkGzI1BqzEbyo3 hvXg==
Received: by with SMTP id o6mr5185563wiy.19.1330640228714; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id hb10sm16351564wib.10.2012. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:17:07 +0000
From: Sergey Beryozkin <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary)" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "'<>'" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Few questions about client_credentials
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:17:11 -0000

On 01/03/12 19:23, Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary) wrote:
> In the case of the Client Credentials Grant, an authorization servers knows what resources the client is authorized to access (this includes the resources that are not owned by the client). The specification explains that authorization of access to the resources "has been previously arranged with the authorization server (the method of which is beyond
>   the scope of this specification)".
Are you saying that this can include the resources of possibly different 
end users ? Or only of a specific single end-user ?

> I have nothing to add to Justin's answer to the second question.




> Zachary
> Zachary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of Richer, Justin P.
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:01 PM
> To: Sergey Beryozkin
> Cc:<>
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Few questions about client_credentials
> If there's a fully trusted relationship between the client and the server, then the client may in fact be accessing data on behalf of another resource owner. It's a useful pattern when a three-legged flow like the Auth Code is not available. But it's kind of splitting hairs because the client has been granted a blanket access to the resource ahead of time, by virtue of its registration. Showing up to get a token is a method of limiting exposure and power of the client credentials, and making it easier to support both direct-client access and delegated-client access simultaneously with most of the same tooling.
> To your second question, no -- scopes do not have to be ignored in this case. In fact, a well-designed client and server can make use of scopes to let the client request an access token that's only good for whatever the current transaction is, as opposed to something that's representative of all of the client's capabilities. This is a method known as "downscoping" and it's a very powerful pattern that OAuth enables. Of course, if you want, you are fully allowed to leave the scope out entirely, then it's up to the Authorization Server alone to figure out what the token is really good for.
> Hope this clears things up,
>   -- Justin
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have few questions about the client_credentials grant type.
>> Section 4.4 [1] says: "...client is requesting access to the protected resources under its control, or those of another resource owner..."
>> What I do not understand is the latter part of the above statement, how to establish a link between the client authentication (which is an actual grant in this case) and different resource owners given that the only thing we have is the client authentication. As far as I can see it is only possible to get a one to one link with the end user in this case.
>> Can someone please clarify what is meant by "those of another resource owner" phrase ?
>> The other question is about an optional scope parameter. It has to be ignored in case of the client requesting a token for accessing its own resources, right ?
>> Thanks, Sergey
>> [1]
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list