IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for text for section 2

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Thu, 01 July 2010 04:50 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6813A3A683E for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.359, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o1XOAYkv1En2 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 18B473A67FB for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10443 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2010 04:50:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.19) by p3plex1out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 1 Jul 2010 04:50:55 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT001.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.19]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:50:55 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:51:04 -0700
Thread-Topic: Proposal for text for section 2
Thread-Index: AcsUm7O3+LYTofkOQ6CsKuFeuynp2ACcJnPgAAxyEYAAH/FooAAMQp/wADFXrDAAAfH0QAAHL9dg
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3ED4C2E6@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C579CC0C3@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C579D0F31@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11265A5FC9D@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C579D20CB@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11265B7E872@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C579D76A1@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11265CBC110@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11265CBC110@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.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] Proposal for text for section 2
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 01 Jul 2010 04:50:50 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:18 PM
> To: Yaron Goland; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for text for section 2
> 
> Yaron,
> 
> > how can you ding client assertions credentials for doing exactly what client
> basic credentials do?
> 
> I don't like client basic credentials in request bodies either. We should ditch
> that as well. I am sure I have dinged it in the past. It offers too little benefit
> for the cost of confusing APIs (& code) by mixing the content and
> authentication. And you lose a well-established discovery method: a
> response with WWW-Authenticate: BASIC ....

You can still do that. The client_id and client_secret parameters are nothing more than a convenient tool for the most common use case. Also, if you noticed, Basic is not the primary method and the parameters are secondary. That's as far as consensus allowed and I would like to consider this item closed.

EHL

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status