Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request.
Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Thu, 27 October 2011 05:22 UTC
Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
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 DAE4A21F8A64 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.033
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XTKwuBLDTYmW for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay05.ispgateway.de (smtprelay05.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.99]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BAC21F8A55 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [79.253.61.184] (helo=[192.168.71.26]) by smtprelay05.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1RJIQD-0002mF-I2; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:22:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA8EA99.4010203@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:22:33 +0200
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
References: <725EAF50-3A82-4AAE-8C60-6D4C4AE52A79@gmx.net> <20111021005637.Horde.X6nKL0lCcOxOoKclCL3mgBA@webmail.df.eu> <CABzCy2BLp=Hh3HdyDdOGF4nZ6TMLRdiuRMzWDPvB3T2Y_fcfNA@mail.gmail.com> <4EA84E97.3020708@lodderstedt.net> <D3FB5359-DDDE-4EF7-BD69-053F5647FE4E@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3FB5359-DDDE-4EF7-BD69-053F5647FE4E@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040704030006000201080906"
X-Df-Sender: dG9yc3RlbkBsb2RkZXJzdGVkdC1vbmxpbmUuZGU=
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request.
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:22:45 -0000
why is it neccessary to duplicate the OAuth request parameters? Am 27.10.2011 00:31, schrieb John Bradley: > Nat and I just refreshed the I-D for draft-sakimura-oauth-requrl. > > It is essentially a standardization of the method we are using in > openID Connect to make signed requests to the Authorization server. > > We do have the issue that parameters in the signed/encrypted request > necessarily duplicate the query parameters to keep it a valid OAuth > request plus an extension. > > Even if it doesn't wind up as a OAuth WG item it is probably worth > people looking at it before the final openID spec is voted on. > > Regards > John B. > > On 2011-10-26, at 3:16 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote: > >> Hi Nat, >> >> I think your proposal would be a useful OAuth enhancement. A >> JSON-based request format would allow for more complex requests (e.g. >> carrying resource server URLs and corresponding scope values ;-)). >> >> Please note: I also think the way this mechanism is introduced and >> used in the current OpenID connect spec requires OpenID connect >> clients and servers to handle OAuth request parameters differently >> than for standard OAuth requests. Introducing the JSON based claim >> request capability to OAuth would be a way to cope with this. >> >> regards, >> Torsten. >> >> Am 22.10.2011 16:00, schrieb Nat Sakimura: >>> Hi. >>> >>> Just a clarification: >>> >>> Although my expired draft is 'request by reference', what was >>> proposed through it at the iiw really is a generalized JSON based >>> claim request capability. It could be passed by value as JSON or >>> could be passed by reference. The later is an optimization for >>> bandwidth constrained network as well as strengthening security in >>> some ways. This capability already exists in OpenID Connect but it >>> is actually an underpinning transport, so it probably should belong >>> to OAuth instead. This was the primary reason for the proposal. >>> >>> Nat >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt >>> <torsten@lodderstedt.net <mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> my prioritization is driven by the goal to make OAuth the >>> authorization framework of choice for any internet standard >>> protocol, such as WebDAV, IMAP, SMTP or SIP. So let me first >>> explain what is missing from my point of view and explain some >>> thoughts how to fill the gaps. >>> >>> A standard protocol is defined in terms of resource types and >>> messages by a body (e.g. IETF, OIDF, OMA), (hopefully) >>> implemented in many places, and used by different but >>> deployment-independent clients. OAuth-based protocol >>> specifications must also define scope values (e.g. read, write, >>> send) and their relation to the resource types and messages. The >>> different deployments expose the standard protocol on different >>> resource server endpoints. In my opinion, it is fundamental to >>> clearly distinguish scope values (standardized, static) and >>> resource server addresses (deployment specific) and to manage >>> their relationships. The current scope definition is much to >>> weak and insufficient. Probably, the UMA concepts of hosts, >>> resources sets, and corresponding scopes could be adopted for >>> that purpose. >>> >>> OAuth today requires clients to register with the service >>> provider before they are deployed. Would you really expect IMAP >>> clients, e.g. Thunderbird, to register with any a-Mail services >>> upfront? So clients should be given a way to register >>> dynamically to the authorization servers. This should also allow >>> us to cover "client instance" aspects. It is interesting to >>> note, that such a mechanism would allow us to get rid of >>> secret-less clients and the one-time usage requirement for >>> authorization codes. >>> >>> We also assume the client to know the URLs of the resource >>> server and the corresponding authorization server and to use >>> HTTPS server authentication to verify the resource server's >>> authenticity. This is impossible in the standard scenario. >>> Clients must be able to discover the authorization server a >>> particular resource server relies on at runtime. The discovery >>> mechanism could be specified by the OAuth WG, but could also be >>> part of an application protocols specification. But we MUST find >>> another way to prevent token phishing by counterfeit resource >>> servers. >>> >>> As one approach, the client could pass the (previously HTTPS >>> validated) resource server's URL with the authorization request. >>> The authorization server should then refuse such requests for >>> any unknown (counterfeit) resource servers. Such an additional >>> parameter could also serve as namespace for scope values and >>> enable service providers to run multiple instances of the same >>> service within a single deployment. >>> >>> If the additional data enlarges the request payload to much, we >>> could consider to adopt the "request by reference" proposal. >>> >>> Let's now assume, OAuth is successful in the world of standard >>> protocols and we will see plenty of deployments with a bunch of >>> different OAuth protected resource servers. Shall this servers >>> all be accessible with a single token? In my opinion, this would >>> cause security, privacy and/or scalability/performance problems. >>> To give just the most obvious example, the target audience of >>> such a token cannot be restricted enough, which may allow a >>> resource server (or an attacker in control of it) to abuse the >>> token on other servers. But the current design of the code grant >>> type forces deployments to use the same token for all services. >>> What is needed from my point of view is a way to request and >>> issue multiple server-specific access tokens with a single >>> authorization process. >>> >>> I've been advocating this topic for a long time now and I'm >>> still convinced this is required to really complete the core >>> design. We at Deutsche Telekom needed and implemented this >>> function on top of the existing core. In my opinion, a core >>> enhancement would be easier to handle and more powerful. If >>> others support this topic, I would be willed to submit an I-D >>> describing a possible solution. >>> >>> If we take standards really seriously, then service providers >>> should be given the opportunity to implement their service by >>> utilizing standard server implementations. This creates the >>> challenge to find a standardized protocol between authorization >>> server and resource server to exchange authorization data. >>> Depending on the token design (self-contained vs. handle) this >>> could be solved by either standardizing a token format (JWT) or >>> an authorization API. >>> >>> Based on the rationale given above, my list is as follows >>> (topics w/o I-D are marked with *): >>> >>> - Revocation (low hanging fruit since I-D is ready and >>> implemented in some places) >>> - Resource server notion* >>> - Multiple access tokens* >>> - Dynamic client registration >>> >>> 1) Dynamic Client Registration Protocol >>> 4) Client Instance Extension >>> - Discovery >>> (10) Simple Web Discovery, probably other specs as well >>> - (6) JSON Web Token >>> - (7) JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Profile >>> - 8) User Experience Extension >>> - Device flow >>> - 9) Request by Reference >>> (depending resource server notion and multiple access tokens) >>> >>> regards, >>> Torsten. >>> Zitat von Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net >>> <mailto:hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>>: >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> in preparation of the upcoming IETF meeting Barry and I >>> would like to start a re-chartering discussion. We both are >>> currently attending the Internet Identity Workshop and so we >>> had the chance to solicit input from the participants. This >>> should serve as a discussion starter. >>> >>> Potential future OAuth charter items (in random order): >>> >>> ---------------- >>> >>> 1) Dynamic Client Registration Protocol >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardjono-oauth-dynreg/ >>> >>> 2) Token Revocation >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lodderstedt-oauth-revocation/ >>> >>> 3) UMA >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardjono-oauth-umacore/ >>> >>> 4) Client Instance Extension >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-richer-oauth-instance-00.txt >>> >>> 5) XML Encoding >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-richer-oauth-xml-00.txt >>> >>> 6) JSON Web Token >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-json-web-token-05 >>> >>> 7) JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Profile >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-00 >>> >>> 8) User Experience Extension >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-recordon-oauth-v2-ux-00 >>> >>> 9) Request by Reference >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sakimura-oauth-requrl-00 >>> >>> 10) Simple Web Discovery >>> >>> Available document: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-simple-web-discovery-00 >>> >>> ---------------- >>> >>> We have the following questions: >>> >>> a) Are you interested in any of the above-listed items? (as >>> a reviewer, co-author, implementer, or someone who would >>> like to deploy). It is also useful to know if you think that >>> we shouldn't work on a specific item. >>> >>> b) Are there other items you would like to see the group >>> working on? >>> >>> Note: In case your document is expired please re-submit it. >>> >>> Ciao >>> Hannes & Barry >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >>> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >>> @_nat_en >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Thomas Hardjono
- [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering David Recordon
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Christian Scholz
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Mark Mcgloin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eliot Lear
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Mark Mcgloin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eran Hammer-Lahav
- [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Richer, Justin P.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Dan Taflin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Dave Rochwerger
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Dan Taflin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Dave Rochwerger
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. Igor Faynberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. torsten
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Multi Token Ressponse. John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Eran Hammer-Lahav
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering JSON based request. John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Rechartering Dick Hardt