Return-Path: 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 2704B11E80FE for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:38:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.086 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 u4YKEfv70seb for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtprelay06.ispgateway.de (smtprelay06.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.104]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FE511E80F2 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.17.214] by smtprelay06.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm848-0000D1-3r; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:38:40 +0200 Message-ID: <4E304D1C.3020407@lodderstedt.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:38:36 -0400 From: Torsten Lodderstedt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eran Hammer-Lahav References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030508060209080108020204" X-Df-Sender: torsten@lodderstedt-online.de Cc: oauth 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:38:46 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030508060209080108020204 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am 27.07.2011 12:08, schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav: > The way I've set it up in --18 is that the client_id parameter in the > authorization endpoint is used to identify the client registration > record. The identifier is described in section 2.3. Then in section > 2.4.1 the parameter is "extended" for use with the token endpoint for > client authentication when Basic is not available. > > So the idea is that the only place you should be using client_id is > with the authorization endpoint to reference the client registration > information (needed to lookup the redirection URI). I have argued in > the past that a future extension to remove the need to register > clients should make this parameter optional but that's outside our > current scope. > > The token endpoint performs client authentication instead of "client > identification" using the client identifier as username. It can do so for confidential clients only. What about public clients using e.g. the Resource Owners Password flow? I see the need to identify them as well. For example, if the authz server issues a refresh token to such a client there must be a way to relate this token to a certain client in order to give the user a chance to revoke this specific token. regards, Torsten. > > Hope this helps. > > EHL > > > From: Brian Campbell > > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:32:42 -0700 > To: Eran Hammer-lahav > > Cc: oauth > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and > identification > > Okay, looking at some of those drafts again, I see that now. Except > for -16 they are all pretty similar on client_id back to -10. > Apparently it was my misunderstanding. Maybe I'm the only one who > doesn't get it but I do think it could be clearer. I'd propose some > text but I'm still not fully sure I understand what is intended. > > If a client doesn't have a secret, is client_id a SHOULD NOT, a MUST > NOT or OPTIONAL to be included on token endpoint requests? > > Here's a specific question/example to illustrate my continued > confusion - it would seem like the majority of clients that would use > the Resource Owner Password Credentials grant (although 4.3.2 shows > the use of HTTP Basic) would be "public" clients. How is it expected > that such clients Identify themselves to the AS? The client identity, > even if not something that can be strongly relied on, is useful for > things like presenting a list of access grants to the user for > revocation. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-20#section-4.3.2 > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav > > wrote: > > Not exactly. > The current setup was pretty stable up to --15. In --16 I > tried to clean it up > by moving the parameter into each token endpoint type > definition. That > didn't work and was more confusing so in --17 I reverted back > to the --15 > approach. > What makes this stand out in --20 is that all the examples now > use HTTP Basic > instead of the parameters (since we decided to make them NOT > RECOMMENDED). > So it feels sudden that client_id is gone, but none of this is > actually much > different from --15 on. Client authentication is still > performed the same > way, and the role of client_id is just as an alternative to > using HTTP Basic > on the token endpoint. > I think the current text is sufficient, but if you want to > provide specific > additions I'm open to it. > EHL > From: Brian Campbell > > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:16:21 -0700 > To: Eran Hammer-lahav > > Cc: oauth > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for > authentication and > identification > > I'm probably somewhat biased by having read previous version > of the > spec, previous WG list discussions, and my current AS > implementation > (which expects client_id) but this seems like a fairly big > departure > from what was in -16. I'm okay with the change but feel it's > wroth > mentioning that it's likely an incompatible one. > That aside, I feel like it could use some more explanation in > draft-ietf-oauth-v2 because, at least to me and hence my > question, it > wasn't entirely clear how client_id should be used for those > cases. > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav > > > wrote: > > The client_id is currently only defined for password > authentication on the > token endpoint. If you are using Basic or any other form of > authentication > (or no authentication at all), you are not going to use the > client_id > parameter. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth --------------030508060209080108020204 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am 27.07.2011 12:08, schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav:
The way I've set it up in –18 is that the client_id parameter in the authorization endpoint is used to identify the client registration record. The identifier is described in section 2.3. Then in section 2.4.1 the parameter is "extended" for use with the token endpoint for client authentication when Basic is not available.

So the idea is that the only place you should be using client_id is with the authorization endpoint to reference the client registration information (needed to lookup the redirection URI). I have argued in the past that a future extension to remove the need to register clients should make this parameter optional but that's outside our current scope.

The token endpoint performs client authentication instead of "client identification" using the client identifier as username.

It can do so for confidential clients only. What about public clients using e.g. the Resource Owners Password flow? I see the need to identify them as well. For example, if the authz server issues a refresh token to such a client there must be a way to relate this token to a certain client in order to give the user a chance to revoke this specific token.

regards,
Torsten.


Hope this helps.

EHL


From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:32:42 -0700
To: Eran Hammer-lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and identification

Okay, looking at some of those drafts again, I see that now. Except
for -16 they are all pretty similar on client_id back to -10.
Apparently it was my misunderstanding.  Maybe I'm the only one who
doesn't get it but I do think it could be clearer.  I'd propose some
text but I'm still not fully sure I understand what is intended.

If a client doesn't have a secret, is client_id a SHOULD NOT, a MUST
NOT or OPTIONAL to be included on token endpoint requests?

Here's a specific question/example to illustrate my continued
confusion - it would seem like the majority of clients that would use
the Resource Owner Password Credentials grant (although 4.3.2 shows
the use of HTTP Basic) would be "public" clients.  How is it expected
that such clients Identify themselves to the AS?  The client identity,
even if not something that can be strongly relied on, is useful for
things like presenting a list of access grants to the user for
revocation.





On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
Not exactly.
The current setup was pretty stable up to –15. In –16 I tried to clean it up
by moving the parameter into each token endpoint type definition. That
didn't work and was more confusing so in –17 I reverted back to the –15
approach.
What makes this stand out in –20 is that all the examples now use HTTP Basic
instead of the parameters (since we decided to make them NOT RECOMMENDED).
So it feels sudden that client_id is gone, but none of this is actually much
different from –15 on. Client authentication is still performed the same
way, and the role of client_id is just as an alternative to using HTTP Basic
on the token endpoint.
I think the current text is sufficient, but if you want to provide specific
additions I'm open to it.
EHL
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:16:21 -0700
To: Eran Hammer-lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] treatment of client_id for authentication and
identification

I'm probably somewhat biased by having read previous version of the
spec, previous WG list discussions, and my current AS implementation
(which expects client_id) but this seems like a fairly big departure
from what was in -16.  I'm okay with the change but feel it's wroth
mentioning that it's likely an incompatible one.
That aside, I feel like it could use some more explanation in
draft-ietf-oauth-v2 because, at least to me and hence my question, it
wasn't entirely clear how client_id should be used for those cases.
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
wrote:

The client_id is currently only defined for password authentication on the
token endpoint. If you are using Basic or any other form of authentication
(or no authentication at all), you are not going to use the client_id
parameter.


 

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
--------------030508060209080108020204--