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

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Mon, 25 July 2011 16:28 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 979A45E800A for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Us-Nk4EhP-WS for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog103.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F93E21F87AF for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com ([209.85.216.51]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob103.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTi2ZxTNivDcJS9yA9QmGL7j5aEZOHhoT@postini.com; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:28:54 PDT
Received: by mail-qw0-f51.google.com with SMTP id 7so2608640qwf.10 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.31.147 with SMTP id y19mr3587194qac.243.1311611333284; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.11.68 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723450245F5786@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <CA+k3eCT6u2Zq676b6s12A=gOFEyBSZLEqK3Erq48mUeyUW+9AQ@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723450245F5786@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:28:23 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCQxhi0bF+EwFYKyupMY0p2qe1a3htsHwLQKdqFkYZNQcA@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: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:28:55 -0000

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
>