From nobody Sun Oct 4 17:17:27 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3893A0AB8 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 17:17:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manicode.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L9dzPg55y8x6 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 17:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pj1-x1042.google.com (mail-pj1-x1042.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1042]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 152BC3A0AB6 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 17:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1042.google.com with SMTP id t7so4750359pjd.3 for ; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 17:17:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manicode.com; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=ySwJQBCfC93U9Xwrxqf7oGDSZQ5pB7gBgOZDIIWlHfA=; b=DNetaAwYAx2Xtqnbi26Ya3OfX+1g1fyOFqmJQnlg1Vk1gpltMTvYXmrBrhFEHO6CQW U1RsqTkTD0D6/739OVO8bsG5B5XcfFG9NGRTtbSG7zO7kQaegHDXqDJ/3PyUIiO2HZIh Z2HjjUndtmgFpmb0imZecZnZ4LSYwixJtmMo8YEiigGo2KrelVzKSNu+FZmDMkIujR2G lalrrXM3ZBzC3LYEwvKI+oCZNNNeXkOAgh5aCsnvNvRXrkgGYpjTngH8geyOEMhMMvgC Ze9FJuDYXLS43rctAPXugdBENZM8RzGtHvuoAY/qD/S2Az1LjD6CR+tSep10DWd2sslM BXxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=ySwJQBCfC93U9Xwrxqf7oGDSZQ5pB7gBgOZDIIWlHfA=; b=OB0Y4VwreevwqBnfgCXDjAc9yrLCyHsbF0wmSuEDauhH6yV/Z1O6etm7VVUfy0w++T AWwep/GYY4KC/PyEi3Pfa9L25wn5U3K19f/P4yLDRXG2K5YQa4YYwf2QaAjhf3mU6yAr jPI+xfVSFwrPPZOF1RiPT4UbKlgodevndgzghd+JIxmMcpQlQYiwNXP829RZcTOvr56+ 6Dob2FivDWB2XrkC+EZGjyJ8Vw9xzJ3KauZRWyec1vo3ephb4fNbLYd96dLNCvyf5NxX Ld2wlVHRGYJFLmaUKi5YbOgQw9NgbkERub4aiYEeBiPeYCQVJoasN+/nF/a8xhnLetWz 136Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533n3ebwZV1pwKfBjrtAVhytbfcVm3D5Pj6SzizMj2nfRJIfSjpX Ko9xDnNkh8phB2oYuzvkQ48uGg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzzRnnRypRl2iLPGcYD1fqZErsIsTk/lPJu4Xj1088xA0v74vexLO9r3hKHtgHsvRYdXiFrgw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bb81:: with SMTP id v1mr4493765pjr.62.1601857043275; Sun, 04 Oct 2020 17:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2605:e000:112c:15:1c86:c08:4402:5c13? ([2605:e000:112c:15:1c86:c08:4402:5c13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d129sm9203954pfc.161.2020.10.04.17.17.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 04 Oct 2020 17:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Jim Manico Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2020 14:17:19 -1000 Message-Id: <13035645-B875-48E5-80DC-C1FD401423E2@manicode.com> References: Cc: Thomas Broyer , oauth@ietf.org In-Reply-To: To: Nicolas Mora X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A393) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT access tokens and the revocation endpoint X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: OAUTH WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 00:17:26 -0000 > In this model, considering that token revocations don't happen a lot... Just a brief note, a secure piece of software makes the logout feature promi= nent. Every logout event should trigger token revocation. I=E2=80=99m mentioning this because a lot of OAuth solutions in the mobile s= pace literally ignore the logout event, such as Facebook=E2=80=99s mobile OA= uth solution.=20 - Jim > On Oct 4, 2020, at 6:55 AM, Nicolas Mora wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFHello, >=20 >> Le 20-10-04 =C3=A0 11 h 27, Thomas Broyer a =C3=A9crit : >>=20 >> There might be some kind of pushed events between the AS and the RS wh= en >> a JWT AT is revoked, to allow the RS not to introspect a JWT AT at all= . >> Like this, the RS knows if a JWT AT has been revoked or not. >>=20 >>=20 >> If there are some kind of pushed events between the AS and the RS, then >> it could push the revoked (and/or expired) opaque AT too, giving almost >> no advantage to JWT ATs. >>=20 > Not necessarily, let's say the AS informs the RS only of the revoked > ATs, when a RS checks an AT, it verifies the signature first, then the > claims, then checks if the AT has been revoked by checking its internal > list filled by the AS pushed events. >=20 > In this model, considering that token revocations don't happen a lot, > the ratio revoked AT/valid AT is very low, so the advantage of a JWT is > important, because it means not so much communication between the AS and > the RSs, and a very reliable AT. >=20 > But this means a communication mechanism that isn't standardized yet. >=20 > /Nicolas >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth