Re: [OAUTH-WG] Registration endpoints? (was: Re: Concerning OAuth )

Todd W Lainhart <lainhart@us.ibm.com> Thu, 31 January 2013 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <lainhart@us.ibm.com>
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 2400021F86AE for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:59:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iR4tUygzB9dF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com (e8.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.138]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331C721F866F for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:59:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e8.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <oauth@ietf.org> from <lainhart@us.ibm.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:59:08 -0500
Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.167) by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.108) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:58:50 -0500
Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDE86E803C; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:58:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (d01av05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.195]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r0VEwnkd324310; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:58:49 -0500
Received: from d01av05.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av05.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r0VEwnTu023327; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:58:49 -0500
Received: from d01ml255.pok.ibm.com (d01ml255.pok.ibm.com [9.63.10.54]) by d01av05.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r0VEwnrC023317; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:58:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CABzCy2DnimSY4yC2OSgN5xtrE_+PH7_wMFB21rvcR0wC_ddj2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABzCy2DnimSY4yC2OSgN5xtrE_+PH7_wMFB21rvcR0wC_ddj2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 93B4AD2D:37A50156-85257B04:0050D88E; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3FP2 SHF22 July 19, 2012
Message-ID: <OF93B4AD2D.37A50156-ON85257B04.0050D88E-85257B04.00524992@us.ibm.com>
From: Todd W Lainhart <lainhart@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:58:48 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML255/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2 ZX853FP2HF4|December 14, 2012) at 01/31/2013 09:58:48, Serialize complete at 01/31/2013 09:58:48
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0052499085257B04_="
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 13013114-9360-0000-0000-00000FF42E2F
Cc: oauth@ietf.org, oauth-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Registration endpoints? (was: Re: Concerning OAuth )
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, 31 Jan 2013 14:59:15 -0000

We implemented our dynamic client registration along the lines that Nat 
describes, except that the resource segment and not the query parm 
identifies the client.  The POST and the GET on the collection return the 
resource identifiers (HATEOS).  Query parms on the collection GET works as 
you might imagine. 

There's a lot of precedent for this style of CRUD programming - I'd be 
surprised if developers didn't get the pattern, and expected consistency 
with OAuth authz programming.  I'm not manipulating resources when I'm 
hitting OAuth endpoints.

Create a client:
---------
POST /example/clients HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com:9443
Content-Length: 494
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=UTF-8
 
client_name=My%20App&...
 

Fetch a single client:
----------
GET /example/clients/6b4333771e1a409c90dd2062dd9e266e HTTP/1.1 


Fetch all clients:
----------
GET /example/clients HTTP/1.1 


Modify a client:
------
PUT /example/clients/6b4333771e1a409c90dd2062dd9e266e HTTP/1.1
Host: example.ibm.com:9443
Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
If-Match: "osQf9mPplNvituLylwpDmQ=="
Content-Length: 217

 
Delete a client:
--------
DELETE /example/clients/6b4333771e1a409c90dd2062dd9e266e HTTP/1.1
Host: example.ibm.com:9443
If-Match: "osQf9mPplNvituLylwpDmQ==" 






Todd Lainhart
Rational software
IBM Corporation
550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-1250
1-978-899-4705
2-276-4705 (T/L)
lainhart@us.ibm.com




From:   Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
To:     John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>om>, 
Cc:     oauth@ietf.org
Date:   01/30/2013 09:22 PM
Subject:        [OAUTH-WG] Registration endpoints? (was: Re:  Concerning 
OAuth )
Sent by:        oauth-bounces@ietf.org



(I changed the subject to match the content.) 

Right. It does not have to be three endpoints. One endpoint would do 
(though it depends on how you count the URLs). 

However, I would do it slightly differently than you (John B.) proposes. 

As an example, let the registration endpoint be named /clients, which 
represents the collection of registered clients. 
(This is the registration endpoint.) 

Then, 

POST to the /clients would create the resource in question. (client 
associate) 
POST to /clients?client_id=12345 and post params (the resource URL) would 
update the resource. 
This is not an idempotent request, and could update any portion of the 
resource. 
In particular, client_secret=null or something could mean "rotate secret."

GET to /clients?client_id=12345 would return the client registration data. 
It is idempotent. 
DELETE to /clients?client_id=12345 would delete the resource. 

PUT to /clients?client_id=12345 (the resource URL) would replace the 
resource, and is idempotent. 
 (I am not sure if we need this. Probably better not have one.) 

For any of the above request except DELETE, the response should return the 
entire object. 

(For the purists: Right. This still could be improved by using URI 
template. 
The server could publish the server metadata including URI template for 
the registration etc. 
At that point, server is freed from forced to use the query parameters. 
For example, 
instead of /clients?client_id=12345, it could have instructed the client 
to use /clients/12345/ 
or /clients/id/12345 etc. but I think that is going too far.)

Nat

2013/1/31 John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
That is better, but I don't see an advantage to that over using a query 
parameter.

They are equally restful or not as the case may be.

To be more restful I think you want a single endpoint using HTTP verbs.

POST /reg_endpoint?paramaters ?  -> register
PUT  /reg_endpoint?client_id=12345&paramaters -> update
PUT /reg_endpoint?client_id=12345&rotate_secret=true

The downside is developers understanding

On 2013-01-30, at 1:17 PM, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> wrote:

>
> On 01/30/2013 10:55 AM, John Bradley wrote:
>> My feeling was that letting the registration endpoint be a single URL 
(any url) and using query paramaters was easer for servers and clients.
>>
>> Saying take the base URI for the registration endpoint and append these 
paths to it to do different operations seems more likely to go wrong fro 
developers.
> Right, and to clarify, this isn't what I was saying. The spec wouldn't 
specify the path at all, just say that they're three different endpoint 
URLs. The same way that we specify that the auth endpoint and token 
endpoint are different URLs.
>
> I think my example might have been misleading. The URLs could just as 
easily be:
>
> client_register -> /register_a_new_client
> rotate_secret -> /client/go_get_a_secret_or_something
> client_update-> /maintenance/update_client_information
>
>
>
>>
>> Allowing both bath and query parameters is the worst option.
>>
>> I am sympathetic with using POST and PUT and perhaps GET but I worry 
about OAuth developers not getting it.
>>
>> I also don't get Tony's point about multi tenancy.  If each tenant can 
have there own registration endpoint I don't see a problem beyond finding 
the endpoint and that is what we have WF for.
> Exactly. And to Bill's point in another thread, we could also register a 
link type for each endpoint to help facilitate discovery: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd-06
>
> -- Justin
>
>>
>> John B.
>>
>> On 2013-01-24, at 11:26 AM, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/24/2013 05:56 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>>> I like this most, would rename it to say
>>>>
>>>> /oauth/client/registration
>>>> or
>>>> /oauth/client-registration
>>>>
>>>> etc
>>>>
>>>> and reword the spec such that it will let those who implement do it 
with one endpoint or many, whatever is preferred
>>>>
>>> That's the whole point of this discussion -- I don't believe you can 
have it both ways.
>>>
>>> In one way, you say there are three endpoints and, if you're keeping 
with the rest of OAuth, you don't give them official URL patterns that 
they must follow. How the client gets those endpoints is up to discovery 
or configuration, but the client has an internal map from each bit of 
functionality to a particular URL that's specific to the service, much in 
the same way that the client today has to map the authorization and token 
endpoints. In the other method, you've got one endpoint that the client 
sends a well-defined parameter to in order to accomplish the same goal.
>>>
>>> So if you allow both at once, does a client send the "operation" 
parameter or not? Is it looking for one url or three to store in its 
configuration? I don't think this level of flexibility buys you anything 
useful, and I strongly believe that it will deeply hurt the functionality 
of dynamic registration if it's allowed.
>>>
>>> As it stands today, you can still make the URL whatever you want. If 
we went with three endpoints you could also make those URLs whatever you 
wanted. Nobody has yet pointed out to me what the actual benefit is of 
making both valid.
>>>
>>> I personally prefer the method of three endpoint URLs because it's 
cleaner and semantically equivalent, but I am hesitant to change that 
behavior unless there's strong working group support for it. I haven't 
seen real support for it yet -- it's not a good call to make it fully 
RESTful, and it's not a good call to leave it undefined. A client MUST 
have a very clear recipe of what to do on startup for this to work in the 
wild.
>>>
>>> -- Justin
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> help multitenancy? How does it even affect that use case? Consider 
that
>>>>> the base URL for all of these is completely up to the host 
environment
>>>>> (nothing is bound to the root URL). Consider that clients still have 
to
>>>>> know what the URL (or URLs) are, in either case. Consider that 
clients
>>>>> still need to know how to manage all the parameters and responses.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anything, keeping it the way that it is with a single URL could 
be
>>>>> argued to help multitenancy because setting up routing to multiple 
URL
>>>>> endpoints can sometimes be problematic in hosted environments. 
However,
>>>>> OAuth already defines a bunch of endpoints, and we have to define at
>>>>> least one more with this extension, so I'm not convinced that having
>>>>> three with specific functions is really any different from having 
one
>>>>> with three functions from a development, deployment, and 
implementation
>>>>> perspective. I can tell you from experience that in our own server 
code,
>>>>> the difference is trivial. (And from OAuth1 experience, you can 
always
>>>>> have a query parameter as part of your endpoint URL if you need to. 
You
>>>>> might hate yourself for doing it that way, but nothing says your 
base
>>>>> URL can't already have parameters on it. A client just needs to know 
how
>>>>> to appropriately tack its parameters onto an existing URL, and any 
HTTP
>>>>> client worth its salt will know how to augment a query parameter set
>>>>> with new items.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The *real* difference between the two approaches is a philosophical
>>>>> design one. The former overloads one URL with multiple functions
>>>>> switched by a flag, the latter uses the URL itself as an implicit 
flag.
>>>>> Under the hood, these could (and in many cases will) be all served 
by
>>>>> the same chunks of code. The only difference is how this switch in
>>>>> functionality is presented.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With that said, can somebody please explain to me how allowing 
*both* of
>>>>> these as options simultaneously (what I understand Tony to be
>>>>> suggesting) is a good idea, or how multitenancy even comes into 
play?
>>>>> Because I am completely not seeing how these are related.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -- Justin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/23/2013 12:46 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>>>>>> It will not work the way you have it, as people do multi-tendency 
different and they are already stuck with the method that they have 
chosen, so they need the flexability, to restrict this is nuts as people 
won't use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher@mitre.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:27 AM
>>>>>> To: Anthony Nadalin
>>>>>> Cc: Nat Sakimura; Shiu Fun Poon;oauth@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I completely disagree with this assessment. Multi-tenancy will work 
just fine (or even better) if everyone uses the same pattern. Telling 
someone "it might be three different urls or it might be all one url with 
a parameter" is just asking for a complete disaster. What does the 
flexibility of allowing two approaches actually accomplish?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can argue about the merits of either approach, but having both 
as unspecified options for registration, which is meant to help things get 
going in a cold-boot environment, is just plain nuts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Justin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/23/2013 12:21 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>>>>>>> Registration has to work in a multi-tenant environment  so 
flexibility
>>>>>>> is needed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher@mitre.org]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:18 AM
>>>>>>> To: Anthony Nadalin
>>>>>>> Cc: Nat Sakimura; Shiu Fun Poon;oauth@ietf.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because then nobody would know how to actually use the thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my opinion, this is a key place where this kind of flexibility 
is a very bad thing. Registration needs to work one fairly predictable 
way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Justin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/23/2013 12:14 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why not just have a physical and logical endpoint options
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From:oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Justin Richer
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:47 AM
>>>>>>>> To: Nat Sakimura
>>>>>>>> Cc: Shiu Fun Poon;oauth@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which brings up an interesting question for the Registration doc: 
right now, it's set up as a single endpoint with three operations. We 
could instead define three endpoints for the different operations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've not been keen to make that deep of a cutting change to it, 
but it would certainly be cleaner and more RESTful API design. What do 
others think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Justin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/22/2013 08:05 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Action" goes against REST principle.
>>>>>>>>> I do not think it is a good idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> =nat via iPhone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jan 23, 2013 4:00、Justin Richer<jricher@mitre.org>  のメッセー
ジ:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (CC'ing the working group)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the "action/operation" flag would accomplish. 
The idea behind having different endpoints in OAuth is that they each do 
different kinds of things. The only "action/operation" that I had 
envisioned for the introspection endpoint is introspection itself: "I have 
a token, what does it mean?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note that client_id and client_secret *can* already be used at 
this endpoint if the server supports that as part of their client 
credentials setup. The examples use HTTP Basic with client id and secret 
right now. Basically, the client can authenticate however it wants, 
including any of the methods that OAuth2 allows on the token endpoint. It 
could also authenticate with an access token. At least, that's the intent 
of the introspection draft -- if that's unclear, I'd be happy to accept 
suggested changes to clarify this text.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/22/2013 01:00 PM, Shiu Fun Poon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Justin,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This spec is looking good..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One thing I would like to recommend is to add 
"action"/"operation"
>>>>>>>>>>> to the request.  (and potentially add client_id and 
client_secret)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So the request will be like :
>>>>>>>>>>> token REQUIRED
>>>>>>>>>>> operation (wording to be determine)  OPTIONAL inquire 
(default) | revoke ...
>>>>>>>>>>> resource_id OPTIONAL
>>>>>>>>>>> client_id OPTIONAL
>>>>>>>>>>> client_secret OPTIONAL
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And for the OAuth client information, it should be an optional 
parameter (in case it is a public client or client is authenticated with 
SSL mutual authentication).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ShiuFun
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth