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

It shouldn't. You are still allowed to reuse client_id outside the specific password credentials use case. Just make sure the way the parameter is defined in v2 is consistent.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampbell@pingidentity.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:28 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and
> identification
> 
> How should HTTP Basic be used for a client not in possession of a client
> secret?
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
> <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >