Re: [OAUTH-WG] PAR: pushed requests must become JWTs

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

If we assume the client posts a JAR and gets back a reference.  Then the
reference is to a JAR.

I think I see the problem.  If the server providing the reference is
associated with the AS then the server dosen't need to dereference the
object via HTTP, so it could be a URN as an example.

So yes it is not a interoperability issue for the client.

I will think about how I can finesse that.

I agree it is not a change in intent.

I will see if I can get our AD to accept that.

John B.




On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 4:57 PM Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Sure but the text proposed (or something like it) qualifies it such that
> there aren't interoperability questions because it's only an implementation
> detail to the AS who both produces the URI and consumes its content.
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:48 PM John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> It may be a challenge to change text saying that the contents of the
>> resource could be something other than a request object.
>>
>> If not a request object then what and how is that interoperable are
>> likely AD questions.
>>
>> I could perhaps see changing it to must be a request object, or other
>> format defined by a profile.
>>
>> John B.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 3:45 PM Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agree and agree. But given that the change suggested by Annabelle has no
>>> impact on the client or interoperability, perhaps Nat or John could work
>>> the change into the draft during the edits that happen during the final
>>> stages of things?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 1:56 AM Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten=
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would assume given the status of JAR, we don’t want to change it. And
>>>> as I said, this difference does not impact interoperability from client
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.01.2020 um 00:58 schrieb Richard Backman, Annabelle <richanna=
>>>> [e-mail]>:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> It would be more appropriate to add the text to JAR rather than PAR. It
>>>> doesn't seem right for PAR to retcon rules in JAR. Moving the text to JAR
>>>> also highlights the weirdness of giving PAR special treatment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What if we changed this sentence in Section 5.2 of JAR:
>>>>
>>>> The contents of the resource referenced by the URI MUST be a Request
>>>>
>>>> Object.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To:
>>>>
>>>> The contents of the resource referenced by the URI MUST be a Request
>>>>
>>>> Object, unless the URI was provided to the client by the Authorization
>>>>
>>>> Server.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This would allow for use cases such as an AS that provides pre-defined
>>>> request URIs, or vends request URIs via a client management console, or
>>>> bakes them into their client apps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> –
>>>>
>>>> Annabelle Richard Backman
>>>>
>>>> AWS Identity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/8/20, 2:50 PM, "Torsten Lodderstedt" <torsten=
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     you are right, PAR does not require the AS to represent the request
>>>> as a JWT-based request object. The URI is used as internal reference only.
>>>> That why the draft states
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     "There is no need to make the
>>>>
>>>>           authorization request data available to other parties via this
>>>>
>>>>           URI.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     This difference matters from an AS implementation perspective, it
>>>> doesn't matter from a client's (interop) perspective.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     We may add a statement to PAR saying that request_uris issued by
>>>> the PAR mechanism (MAY) deviate from the JAR definition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     best regards,
>>>>
>>>>     Torsten.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     > On 8. Jan 2020, at 23:42, Richard Backman, Annabelle <richanna=
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     >
>>>>
>>>>     > Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>     >
>>>>
>>>>     > The current drafts of PAR (-00) and JAR (-20) require that the AS
>>>> transform all pushed requests into JWTs. This requirement arises from the
>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>>     >         • PAR uses the request_uri parameter defined in JAR to
>>>> communicate the pushed request to the authorization endpoint.
>>>>
>>>>     >         • According to JAR, the resource referenced by
>>>> request_uri MUST be a Request Object. (Section 5.2)
>>>>
>>>>     >         • Request Object is defined to be a JWT containing all
>>>> the authorization request parameters. (Section 2.1)
>>>>
>>>>     >
>>>>
>>>>     > There is no need for this requirement to support
>>>> interoperability, as this is internal to the AS. It is also inconsistent
>>>> with the rest of JAR, which avoids attempting to define the internal
>>>> communications between the two AS endpoints. Worse, this restriction makes
>>>> it harder for the authorization endpoint to leverage validation and other
>>>> work performed at the PAR endpoint, as the state or outcome of that work
>>>> must be forced into the JWT format (or retrieved via a subsequent service
>>>> call or database lookup).
>>>>
>>>>     >
>>>>
>>>>     > –
>>>>
>>>>     > Annabelle Richard Backman
>>>>
>>>>     > AWS Identity
>>>>
>>>>     >
>>>>
>>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>     > OAuth mailing list
>>>>
>>>>     > [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>
>>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
>>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
>>> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
>>> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
>>> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
>>> your computer. Thank you.*
>>
>>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*