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

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Mon, 25 July 2011 16:25 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 B064B21F85A8 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:25:53 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hE7kZBSY5wTG for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EAC2D21F85EE for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24407 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2011 16:25:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.20) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 25 Jul 2011 16:25:48 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) with mapi; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:25:37 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:25:01 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and identification
Thread-Index: AcxK5wmOcB8KzQm/SFClasEHZhWm0gAACsRQ
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723450245F5786@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <CA+k3eCT6u2Zq676b6s12A=gOFEyBSZLEqK3Erq48mUeyUW+9AQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+k3eCT6u2Zq676b6s12A=gOFEyBSZLEqK3Erq48mUeyUW+9AQ@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
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: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:25:53 -0000

client_id is only required on the authorization endpoint, not the token endpoint. -18 cleaned up how the document talked about client authentication in general. So you should remove client_id from your draft and instead mention client authentication (if appropriate).

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Brian Campbell
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 7:02 AM
> To: oauth
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and
> identification
> 
> I need to revisit a question that came up about two months ago.  I thought I
> had a clear understanding of when client_id was and wasn't included in
> access token requests but drafts 18/19 seemed to have changed things (or
> my understanding of 16 was wrong).
> 
> 
> The question is, when is client_id a required parameter on requests to the
> token endpoint and when can/should it be omitted?
> 
> In -16 I was under the impression that client_id was always to be included
> even when using HTTP Basic or other means of authentication.
> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-16#section-3.1 and
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg06328.html for
> example.
> 
> But the text and examples in -18/-19 would suggest that client_id is to be
> omitted when using HTTP Basic.  Text in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-19#section-2.4.1 and example
> in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-19#section-4.1.3
> 
> I don't have a strong preference for either direction but do feel it needs to
> be more explicitly spelled out.  Scenarios that should be accounted for are,
> for both clients in possession of a client password and clients without, using
> client_id/client_secret, using  HTTP Basic and using other means of
> authentication/identification.
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth