Re: [OAUTH-WG] review comments on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-11.txt

Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com> Thu, 30 May 2013 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <phil.hunt@oracle.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 33DD321F8FBE for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.114
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_CREDIT=2.3, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vCIX+i0v2Awe for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB9521F929F for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r4UG2xsw003795 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 30 May 2013 16:03:00 GMT
Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4UG2wg2000860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 30 May 2013 16:02:59 GMT
Received: from abhmt101.oracle.com (abhmt101.oracle.com [141.146.116.53]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4UG2wdK028722; Thu, 30 May 2013 16:02:58 GMT
Received: from [192.168.1.125] (/24.85.226.208) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:02:58 -0700
References: <20130524203638.25945.84709.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5071FA1C-F6F7-43AD-9EDC-13B0D480F97A@mitre.org> <51A3AE0B.1020802@lodderstedt.net> <51A4BF27.50800@mitre.org> <51A72B3E.9050300@lodderstedt.net> <51A76052.6040004@mitre.org> <0354062A-DEB8-4272-861B-43DC48887F54@ve7jtb.com> <2E872A80-1B5B-468D-910C-1D6E9DFEFF78@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <2E872A80-1B5B-468D-910C-1D6E9DFEFF78@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9F86FCC6-E737-4086-8821-81A94AEC4BE2@oracle.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B329)
From: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:02:58 -0700
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] review comments on draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-11.txt
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, 30 May 2013 16:04:01 -0000

Seriously. The new dyn reg draft introduces two new tokens. The initial reg token and the registration access token. 

As for the latter, the reg access token, my understanding is it has nothing to do with an access token. It is issued *after* registration to allow reg updates.  Right? I know some are confused about this. 

Phil

On 2013-05-30, at 8:52, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com> wrote:

> No different issue. I was concerned about the initial client assertion being passed in as authen cred. It is a signed set of client reg metadata. 
> 
> See we are confused. Hence my worry. :-)
> 
> Phil
> 
> On 2013-05-30, at 8:48, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think Phil also had some processing reason why a Token endpoint or RS wouldn't want to tale the authentication as a header, as the processing was easier with them as parameters as they are potentially available to different parts of the stack.   That may have been mostly around RS, but the principal may apply to the token endpoint as well.
>> 
>> On 2013-05-30, at 10:21 AM, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "client_secret_post vs client_secret_basic"
>>>>>> BASIC and POST are essentially the same just different ways to send the client secret. If an authorization server supports both, both should work for any client. So are both methods treated differently?
>>>>> I agree, and this was one of my original arguments for making this field plural (or plural-able), but there hasn't been WG support for that so far.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not arguing to make it plural. I think the authentication method is just "client_secret".
>>> 
>>> That was also an option that was brought up, but in the OIDC WG the counter-argument was (as I recall) that the two are syntactically separate and there's a desire to restrict to a single type, such as disabling client_secret_post. Basically, to make it unambiguous.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth