Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item

Anthony Nadalin <> Wed, 30 July 2014 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8DB1A04F1 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VJSnBIorNDxU for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D6AE1A03A2 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.11; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 01:17:44 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.011; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 01:17:44 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <>
To: Justin Richer <jricher@MIT.EDU>, Phil Hunt <>, Thomas Broyer <>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 01:17:42 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 0288CD37D9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(479174003)(24454002)(164054003)(377454003)(189002)(199002)(53754006)(54356999)(79102001)(74502001)(106116001)(105586002)(2171001)(95666004)(106356001)(76176999)(15202345003)(31966008)(92566001)(85306003)(83072002)(87936001)(85852003)(86612001)(99286002)(19300405004)(76482001)(15975445006)(561944003)(99396002)(50986999)(2656002)(107046002)(19580405001)(4396001)(93886003)(81542001)(21056001)(66066001)(86362001)(80022001)(33646002)(16236675004)(101416001)(19625215002)(77982001)(46102001)(76576001)(19580395003)(20776003)(81342001)(64706001)(74316001)(83322001)(19617315012)(108616002)(42262001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB311;; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7a0dabb3d5e04ef5b2528da42fea9f7bBLUPR03MB309namprd03pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 01:17:50 -0000

I think we need management APIs now to manage the new endpoint, but seriously this introspection proposal has privacy issues, to avoid these I would encrypt the tokens and then this would be a useless endpoint, also this has issues with symmetric POP tokens, but maybe this was only designed to work on bearer tokens.

From: OAuth [] On Behalf Of Justin Richer
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:08 PM
To: Phil Hunt; Thomas Broyer
Cc: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item

So you want a service where the RS can call an HTTP endpoint to see if the token is alive or not? That sounds like an awesome idea! Very useful for a variety of use cases that people have already mentioned on that list. Maybe that service should respond in JSON with, say, { "active": true } if it's still valid. That's a great start, and that should obviously be MTI.

But while we're there, we probably want to know what else the token is for, since this service will probably know that, so let's add in the "scope" and "client_id" and whatever other meta-information we have about the token. If this endpoint doesn't have that information? Well then, I guess it can't return it. So we need to make sure to be flexible about that while we define a common core set of semantics. Flexibility like that is very powerful and could be used in a variety of protocols and deployments across domains and vendors.

You know, this idea is sounding better and better. In fact, I'll do you one better. I think this is such a fantastic idea that I wrote it all down in RFC format:

Glad to have you on board, Phil.

 -- Justin

On 7/29/2014 9:02 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
I think one alternative to an introspection service is a revocation status service.

But it is often not needed if token lifetimes are small (minutes / session life) compared to the refresh token which might last much longer.

Again having info on the case helps explain the requirements of your case and we can tell what the best pattern is.


On Jul 29, 2014, at 17:55, Thomas Broyer <<>> wrote:

Try it where? When you're the RS trying to determine whether you should accept the token or reject it?
Le 30 juil. 2014 02:49, "Mike Jones" <<>> a écrit :
Yes, but that’s the simplest thing to determine – try the token and see whether it works or not.

From: Thomas Broyer [<>]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:43 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: <<>>; George Fletcher; Phil Hunt
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item

Decoding a token with a specific format wouldn't tell you whether the token is still live: it could have been revoked before its expiration.
Le 30 juil. 2014 02:16, "Mike Jones" <<>> a écrit :
Did you consider standardizing the access token format within that deployment so all the parties that needed to could understand it, rather requiring an extra round trip to an introspection endpoint so as to be able to understand things about it?

I realize that might or might not be practical in some cases, but I haven’t heard that alternative discussed, so I thought I’d bring it up.

I also second Phil’s comment that it would be good to understand the use cases that this is intended to solve before embarking on a particular solution path.

                                                            -- Mike

From: OAuth [<>] On Behalf Of George Fletcher
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:25 PM
To: Phil Hunt; Thomas Broyer
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item

We also have a use case where the AS is provided by a partner and the RS is provided by AOL. Being able to have a standardized way of validating and getting data about the token from the AS would make our implementation much simpler as we can use the same mechanism for all Authorization Servers and not have to implement one off solutions for each AS.

On 7/28/14, 8:11 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
Could we have some discussion on the interop cases?

Is it driven by scenarios where AS and resource are separate domains? Or may this be only of interest to specific protocols like UMA?

From a technique principle, the draft is important and sound. I am just not there yet on the reasons for an interoperable standard.


On Jul 28, 2014, at 17:00, Thomas Broyer <<>> wrote:
Yes. This spec is of special interest to the platform we're building for

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <<>> wrote:
Hi all,

during the IETF #90 OAuth WG meeting, there was strong consensus in
adopting the "OAuth Token Introspection"
(draft-richer-oauth-introspection-06.txt) specification as an OAuth WG
work item.

We would now like to verify the outcome of this call for adoption on the
OAuth WG mailing list. Here is the link to the document:

If you did not hum at the IETF 90 OAuth WG meeting, and have an opinion
as to the suitability of adopting this document as a WG work item,
please send mail to the OAuth WG list indicating your opinion (Yes/No).

The confirmation call for adoption will last until August 10, 2014.  If
you have issues/edits/comments on the document, please send these
comments along to the list in your response to this Call for Adoption.

Hannes & Derek

OAuth mailing list<>

Thomas Broyer
OAuth mailing list<>


OAuth mailing list<>


OAuth mailing list<>