Re: [Ace] "default value" for authz-info endpoint

Hi,

In most cases where I've been involved with implementing a single RFC
defined .well-known URL for actually servicing all end points, it ends
up being one .well-known for default configuration, and multiple other
(not .well-known) URLs in order to handle other configurations in
multi-tennant scenarios.
I hope whatever .well-known scheme is selected will handle
multi-tennancy, where thare can be differently configured service end
points servicing from the same host/ip.
I.e. can one host server multiple authz-info? (does that make sense?)

Regards,
Tomas

On 2020-06-02 01:58, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Hi Ludwig,
> 
> I'm confident that a well-known URI (or link relation) for discovery of RS
> configuration/parameters would address the BCP 190 concerns.  What we need
> is an obvious path to not stomp on the server owner's namespace, and
> whether we do that by letting the server tell us what what path to use or
> by constraining ourself to a well-specified cordoned-off corner reserved
> for our use is up to us.
> 
> Thanks for all the ideas and follow-up discussion!
> 
> -Ben
> 
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 09:13:13AM +0000, Seitz Ludwig wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> I had a look at the well-known URI list at IANA and it seems that for vanilla OAuth 2.0 endpoints (authorization, token, introspect) there are no well-known URI:s either. What exists is an URI used by the authorization server to self-describe (including attributes giving the values of the endpoint's URIs).
>>
>> So my interpretation would be that instead of defining a well-known URI for authz-info, we need to define an attribute that a Resource Server can include in its well-known information to identify the authz-info endpoint URI it is exposing. 
>>
>> @Carsten (or other core experts): Would it make sense to define a new attribute in the /.well-known/core format for Resource Servers using coap?
>>
>> /Ludwig
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ace <ace-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk
>> Sent: den 31 maj 2020 00:36
>> To: ace@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Ace] "default value" for authz-info endpoint
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was prompted by the discussion at the interim to look more closely at what we say about the "default name" for endpoint URIs, e.g., the authz-info endpoint.  The last paragraph of
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-33#section-5.8.1
>> says:
>>
>>    The default name of this endpoint in an url-path is '/authz-info',
>>    however implementations are not required to use this name and can
>>    define their own instead.
>>
>> I've gotten advice from some URI experts that this doesn't give an easy/discoverable path (pun intended) to using a non-default value, which is problematic from the perspective of BCP 190 (and we should expect to get discussed at IESG evaluation time).  This sort of issue goes away if we allocate a well-known URI for authz-info from https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml and have that be the default.  In particular, that wouldn't actually stop any deployments from using /authz-info, but it does mean they'd have to knowingly "opt in" to doing so.
>>
>> What do people think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ace mailing list
>> Ace@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> Ace@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
> 