I would be very happy with this approach, with the addition of discussing the 
role of the client identifier and that a binding to any client authentication 
is needed.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:47 PM
> To: oauth
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Revised Section 3
> 
> I'm certainly in favour of excluding client auth from OAuth. Dropping section
> 3 and just having a paragraph like the following would be preferable (with no
> capitalized keywords):
> 
>   In many cases an authorization server will require client
>   authentication for requests to a token endpoint.
>   Consequently, a client app that has credentials appropriate
>   for that server should proactively use them for such requests.
>   The actual mechanism for client authentication, and any
>   provisioning of the associated credentials, is outside
>   the scope of OAuth 2.
> 
> 
> I am not a fan of the client_id/client_secret parameters, but was resigned to
> their inclusion given existing deployments. Given those parameters are
> mentioned, OAuth2 should say:
> 
>   Various early deployments of the OAuth 2.0 concepts authenticated
>   clients to the token endpoint using client_id and client_secret
>   parameters in the request (alongside the grant_type parameter
>   for instance). A server that accepts client_id/client_secret
>   parameters MUST also accept the same credentials presented using the
>   HTTP BASIC scheme instead (ie in an "Authorization: BASIC ..." request
>   header).
> 
> 
> The last paragraph of Thomas's "3.2 Shared Secret Credentials" is crazy
> (typo?). A server supporting some strong authentication mechanism must
> not be mandated to also support weaker BASIC and client_id/client_secret
> mechanisms -- and certainly not with the same secret!
> 
> "3.3 Client Assertion Credentials". OAuth2 currently supports the concept of
> a client app swapping an assertion for an access token. Do people want the
> additional functionality of using assertions for generic client 
> authentication? I
> assumed servers would prefer that clients swap an assertion for a token at
> one specific endpoint, then use the token for generic client auth in other
> requests -- in which case section 3.3 "Client Assertion Credentials" can be
> dropped.
> 
> --
> James Manger
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to