I still "argue" that the initial client access token (not assertion) is
really just an authorization token for the endpoint (like any other
OAuth2 protected resource). There is nothing within OAuth2 that
precludes a system using structured authorization tokens that contain
claims and using that claim data as factors in an authorization policy.
Whether a token is structured or opaque doesn't change it's use as an
authorization token. Even in traditional OAuth2 deployments, most opaque
tokens identify the client to which the token was given. So I don't see
this initial client access token as an authentication token but rather
an authorization token.
Maybe that few of "authentication token" vs "authorization token" is
where there is confusion?
Thanks,
George
On 5/30/13 11:52 AM, Phil Hunt wrote:
No different issue. I was concerned about the initial client assertion being
passed in as authen cred. It is a signed set of client reg metadata.
See we are confused. Hence my worry. :-)
Phil
On 2013-05-30, at 8:48, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
I think Phil also had some processing reason why a Token endpoint or RS
wouldn't want to tale the authentication as a header, as the processing was
easier with them as parameters as they are potentially available to different
parts of the stack. That may have been mostly around RS, but the principal
may apply to the token endpoint as well.
On 2013-05-30, at 10:21 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote:
"client_secret_post vs client_secret_basic"
BASIC and POST are essentially the same just different ways to send the client
secret. If an authorization server supports both, both should work for any
client. So are both methods treated differently?
I agree, and this was one of my original arguments for making this field plural
(or plural-able), but there hasn't been WG support for that so far.
I'm not arguing to make it plural. I think the authentication method is just
"client_secret".
That was also an option that was brought up, but in the OIDC WG the
counter-argument was (as I recall) that the two are syntactically separate and
there's a desire to restrict to a single type, such as disabling
client_secret_post. Basically, to make it unambiguous.
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
