[Openid-specs-ab] Authorization Request or Authentication Request?

Torsten Lodderstedt torsten at lodderstedt.net
Sun Nov 3 14:48:23 UTC 2013


+1



Brian Campbell <bcampbell at pingidentity.com> schrieb:
>Having Connect define and use the term “Authentication Request”
>provides a
>nice semantic distinction of what's going on beyond a plain old OAuth
>"Authorization Request" and, I think, makes it easier to talk about and
>explain.
>
>So yes, Authentication Request is section headers and in content where
>appropriate is what I'd prefer.
>
>
>On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:26 PM, n-sakimura <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>
>wrote:
>
>>  My suggestion was affected by one of the earlier reviewer. I thought
>> that was quite reasonable.
>> To me, the definition of the each terms are as follows now:
>>
>> Authorization Request
>> OAuth 2.0 Authroization Request
>>
>> Authentication Request
>> Authorization Request used to obtain the Authentication Result
>through the
>> use of OpenID Connect extension parameters and profiled scopes
>>
>> As a section header, I believe Authentication Request is more
>appropriate.
>>
>> Nat
>>
>>
>> (2013/10/31 12:01), Mike Jones wrote:
>>
>>  We define an Authentication Request as an OAuth 2.0 Authorization
>> Request that requests that the End-User be authenticated by the
>> Authorization Server.  And we use the term Authentication Request in
>a few
>> places.  However, we use the term “Authorization Request” in the
>section
>> headings, because it’s the OAuth message used.
>>
>>
>>
>> More than one reviewer has suggested that we change these section
>headings
>> from “Authorization Request” to “Authentication Request”.  I agree
>that
>> that’s a better semantic description.  We’d just have to be careful
>to
>> continue to say “Authentication Request” when referring to the OAuth
>> message.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do people prefer?
>>
>>
>>
>>                                                             -- Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing
>listOpenid-specs-ab at lists.openid.nethttp://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (n-sakimura at nri.co.jp)
>> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. Tel:+81-3-6274-1412
>Fax:+81-3-6274-1547
>>
>>
>本メールに含まれる情報は機密情報であり、宛先に記載されている方のみに送信することを意図しております。意図された受取人以外の方によるこれらの情報の開示、複製、再配布や転送など一切の利用が禁止されています。誤って本メールを受信された場合は、申し訳ござ&#1235
>>  6;&#124
>> 14;せんが、送信者までお知らせいただき、受信されたメールを削除していただきますようお願い致します。
>> PLEASE READ:
>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended
>for the named recipient(s) only.
>> If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby
>notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of
>this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
>in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete your copy
>from your system.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Openid-specs-ab mailing list
>Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
>http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20131103/543c171a/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list