Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[proposal] Add
auth
as a capability with support for OAuth 2.0 and secrets. #101[proposal] Add
auth
as a capability with support for OAuth 2.0 and secrets. #101Changes from 1 commit
c14139b
9b9340d
a5ff8c2
ee1676b
b19ccfe
1a665e3
12f3ab9
c9f37bb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would move this into the guidelines below and change to SHOULD, because a client that doesn't do these is still workable, it will just get de-authed frequently.
Or maybe it's more like:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This might be better as SHOULD, because I could conceive of server implementations where indicating an authentication failure exposes too much information. (Similar in principle to why private GitHub repos you can't access return 404 rather than 403/401.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO this term is too ambiguous, since don't all forms of "client giving details to the server" (including OAuth) involve some kind of credentials?
What about "token authentication" or "bearer authentication" or something like that? Neither is quite expansive enough (e.g., to include use cases like providing a raw password), but that might be OK.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have no strong feelings about naming; my take is that OAuth is a fancy wrapper on top of this. Let's see if anyone is an advocate for a particular name and I can go rename the file + references to "credential".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit: probably obviated if we rename per my comment above, but if we keep as-is, I think this should be plural:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Leaving unresolved until naming is settled