IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Thu, 18 August 2011 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.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 A64CB21F8880 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 23NGS4Bwqpd4 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E112021F87C9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.216.49]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob125.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTk2DMKRRx15EfrARKNFV2i/f2MUAJH/R@postini.com; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:25:14 PDT
Received: by mail-qw0-f49.google.com with SMTP id 2so2075057qwi.36 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.198.135 with SMTP id eo7mr1147990qab.33.1313702704130; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.28.202 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345029DFAB5D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <4E317125.7080006@lodderstedt.net> <CA56CA21.1758B%eran@hueniverse.com> <CA+k3eCTguAGGC1xGuuA0Z2sRu7MNCdtsUnb-3V9vmz4CFwxBYw@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234502498CDD9@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <0E96A74B7DFCF844A9BE2A0BBE2C425F058F244272@USNAVSXCHMBSB3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345029DFAB5D@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:24:34 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCQfdPZeaKa9eP+mQaCo-aRDhWFSBfik0gqMy3ExQnUXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:24:19 -0000

FWIW, I was okay with the text EHL had originally proposed for 21.

>> > client_secret
>> >                 REQUIRED. The client secret. The client MAY omit the
>> > parameter if the client secret
>> >                 is an empty string.
>>
>> I would suggest rewording the above as follows:
>> client_secret
>>       REQUIRED unless it is an empty string. The client secret.
>
> "unless its value is an empty string". Do people read this new text to mean OPTIONAL if not empty?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email