Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> Thu, 11 August 2011 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <tonynad@microsoft.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 E96AB228011 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
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 x71KgRQAJsPY for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail2.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C891921F8B71 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.174) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:52:06 -0700
Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (157.54.51.114) by mail.microsoft.com (157.54.79.174) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:52:05 -0700
Received: from mail37-ch1-R.bigfish.com (216.32.181.169) by CH1EHSOBE016.bigfish.com (10.43.70.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:51:37 +0000
Received: from mail37-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail37-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5D71A601A3 for <oauth@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:51:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -26
X-BigFish: PS-26(zz9371K936eKc85fh98dKzz1202h1082kzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:207.46.4.139; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:SKI; H:SN2PRD0302HT008.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received-SPF: softfail (mail37-ch1: transitioning domain of microsoft.com does not designate 207.46.4.139 as permitted sender) client-ip=207.46.4.139; envelope-from=tonynad@microsoft.com; helo=SN2PRD0302HT008.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail37-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail37-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 131309589753722_6489; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:51:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.251]) by mail37-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A10320064; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:51:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from SN2PRD0302HT008.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (207.46.4.139) by CH1EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (10.43.70.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:51:35 +0000
Received: from SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.250]) by SN2PRD0302HT008.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.27.90.177]) with mapi id 14.01.0225.064; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:51:34 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens
Thread-Index: AcxYTQ8Url5GUfgWROGRaafg4jY5WAAAisuAAACFmiAAAx1sgAAALzUgAAJNOQAAAB4R0A==
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:51:33 +0000
Message-ID: <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723B89F11@SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723B89DBF@SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA698D45.17CCD%eran@hueniverse.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA698D45.17CCD%eran@hueniverse.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.107.0.76]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723B89F11SN2PRD0302MB137_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN2PRD0302HT008.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%HUENIVERSE.COM$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%GMAIL.COM$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens
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, 11 Aug 2011 20:51:32 -0000

There are no use cases at all in WRAP to help explain choices taken, it does not matter if there were or were not previous issues raised, it is being raised now.

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:46 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

That's irrelevant given WRAP does not mention anonymity or anything else about refresh token not explicitly addressed already by v2. Your email is the very first time this has been raised on this list.

EHL

From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com<mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com>>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:41:28 -0700
To: Eran Hammer-lahav <eran@hueniverse.com<mailto:eran@hueniverse.com>>, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>>
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>)" <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

Anonymity was certainly part of the design for WRAP

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:35 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>)
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

Section 1.5 already covers refresh tokens. There are many use cases for refresh tokens. They are basically a protocol feature used to make scalability and security more flexible. Anonymity was never part of their design, and by the nature of this protocol, is more in the domain of the resource server (based on what information it exposes via its API). In fact, your email if the first such suggestion of anonymity.

EHL

From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com<mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com>>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:15:28 -0700
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>>
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>)" <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

Many reasons, but none are explained in the specification

From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:51 AM
To: Anthony Nadalin
Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>)
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

My recollection of refresh tokens was for security and revocation.

security: By having a short lived access token, a compromised access token would limit the time an attacker would have access

revocation: if the access token is self contained, authorization can be revoked by not issuing new access tokens. A resource does not need to query the authorization server to see if the access token is valid.This simplifies access token validation and makes it easier to scale and support multiple authorization servers.  There is a window of time when an access token is valid, but authorization is revoked.



On 2011-08-11, at 10:40 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:




Nowhere in the specification is there explanation for refresh tokens, The reason that the Refresh token was introduced was for anonymity. The scenario is that a client asks the user for access. The user wants to grant the access but not tell the client the user's identity. By issuing the refresh token as an 'identifier' for the user (as well as other context data like the resource) it's possible now to let the client get access without revealing anything about the user. Recommend that the above explanation be included so developers understand why the refresh tokens are there.
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth