Sergey,

This thread is a lot like another thread titled "Securing APIs with
OAuth 2.0". You might read the comments there for further
clarification:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08472.html

Regards,
Andre DeMarre

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>Are you saying that this can include the resources of possibly different end 
>>users ?
> Yes. The specification does not limit a number of the users whose resources a 
> client may access using the client credentials flow.
>
> Zachary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:17 PM
> To: Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary)
> Cc: 'Richer, Justin P.'; '<[email protected]>'
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Few questions about client_credentials
>
> Hi,
> On 01/03/12 19:23, Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary) wrote:
>> In the case of the Client Credentials Grant, an authorization servers knows 
>> what resources the client is authorized to access (this includes the 
>> resources that are not owned by the client). The specification explains that 
>> authorization of access to the resources "has been previously arranged with 
>> the authorization server (the method of which is beyond
>>   the scope of this specification)".
>>
> Are you saying that this can include the resources of possibly different
> end users ? Or only of a specific single end-user ?
>
>
>> I have nothing to add to Justin's answer to the second question.
>
> OK
>
> Thanks
>
> Sergey
>
>>
>> Zachary
>>
>>
>> Zachary
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
>> Richer, Justin P.
>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:01 PM
>> To: Sergey Beryozkin
>> Cc:<[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Few questions about client_credentials
>>
>> If there's a fully trusted relationship between the client and the server, 
>> then the client may in fact be accessing data on behalf of another resource 
>> owner. It's a useful pattern when a three-legged flow like the Auth Code is 
>> not available. But it's kind of splitting hairs because the client has been 
>> granted a blanket access to the resource ahead of time, by virtue of its 
>> registration. Showing up to get a token is a method of limiting exposure and 
>> power of the client credentials, and making it easier to support both 
>> direct-client access and delegated-client access simultaneously with most of 
>> the same tooling.
>>
>> To your second question, no -- scopes do not have to be ignored in this 
>> case. In fact, a well-designed client and server can make use of scopes to 
>> let the client request an access token that's only good for whatever the 
>> current transaction is, as opposed to something that's representative of all 
>> of the client's capabilities. This is a method known as "downscoping" and 
>> it's a very powerful pattern that OAuth enables. Of course, if you want, you 
>> are fully allowed to leave the scope out entirely, then it's up to the 
>> Authorization Server alone to figure out what the token is really good for.
>>
>> Hope this clears things up,
>>
>>   -- Justin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have few questions about the client_credentials grant type.
>>> Section 4.4 [1] says: "...client is requesting access to the protected 
>>> resources under its control, or those of another resource owner..."
>>>
>>> What I do not understand is the latter part of the above statement, how to 
>>> establish a link between the client authentication (which is an actual 
>>> grant in this case) and different resource owners given that the only thing 
>>> we have is the client authentication. As far as I can see it is only 
>>> possible to get a one to one link with the end user in this case.
>>>
>>> Can someone please clarify what is meant by "those of another resource 
>>> owner" phrase ?
>>>
>>> The other question is about an optional scope parameter. It has to be 
>>> ignored in case of the client requesting a token for accessing its own 
>>> resources, right ?
>>>
>>> Thanks, Sergey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23#section-4.4
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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