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

Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com> Wed, 30 July 2014 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0C31B27AD for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJPHOIY_Q1WC for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22c.google.com (mail-wg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BCED1B27A2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id m15so1052432wgh.3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=L1zAZ2uV/wY3RBTINb1klbVSxKOOKT5c05u4hwW6UmI=; b=HOlHF1SyKufqD3dlNa3LM76iE5GaUBWoLIlrc2AV40nQWzqNMeNEGu0r2xAWUoSaiI NxS+PnpvMUwVgukC7OjrgwgVDiRcyFk0vhGkvNNVUkUhgx2OokmGtsfvMBoC0SYc4zwI Qkax0wWG4BO7RUyLbPxjB41f1adXU1CFN848CU/67b4UD4YpGA3HkmN391pXFnZXT2Uj cs1cwKP5ymHhstNj3K4KvSf9rhXr88PdP60sFg/8fLZy5SMD86r6Ihs3WOaigps938Rl ZWiHvLZJsSqYGZTo3xBE17STLoaPQc2cEDTeGOTla4Fvqovp5adGAFK/GA9kYFtCetI1 +8UA==
X-Received: by 10.194.57.132 with SMTP id i4mr5462464wjq.6.1406721069081; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.39.0.31] ([87.252.227.100]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fb8sm54577642wib.15.2014.07.30.04.51.07 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53D8DC2A.6030503@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:51:06 +0300
From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
References: <53D6895F.4050104@gmx.net> <CAEayHEM+pqDqv1qx=Z-qhNuYM-s2cV0z=sQb_FAJaGwcLpq_rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20A36D56-D581-4EDE-9DEA-D3F9C48AD20B@oracle.com> <53D81F2C.2060700@aol.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439ADF77B2@TK5EX14MBXC293.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <53D841D3.6020505@mit.edu> <311A2204-E968-4657-BD27-58DCD072542A@oracle.com> <53D8A2A0.5040205@gmail.com> <9AF95517-3415-4A3C-A2FB-3BBDFC49E218@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <9AF95517-3415-4A3C-A2FB-3BBDFC49E218@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/3tUZ1UWJCFy3L8fFHY6W2CwsvjE
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:51:19 -0000

On 30/07/14 14:42, John Bradley wrote:
> This request for only those not at the F2F to add to the hum has gone a bit off the rails.
>
Meaning you see too much feedback, is it bad, even if some of it may be 
off topic ?
> For those not in the room there was discussion that the draft needed a method to deal with:
> - Multiple AS
> - Supporting the PoP specs
> - stopping clients or other interceptors of the token from introspecting it.
>
> Justin stated that his implementation already had a number of those features.
>
> I offered to help get those into the spec as part of my support for making this a WG item.
>
> Yes if AS and RS are monolithic and there is only one software vendor, then this is not needed.
Why not ? What is wrong with standardizing an introspection process 
which even RS & AS from the same vendor may want to use as opposed to 
every vendor inventing its own protocol ?

This is why I thought focusing on the RS to 3rd party only diverts from 
the idea which I 'read' in the thread (may be I'm wrong), i.e, 
standardizing on the RS-to-AS communication, which may not have been 
considered,

Cheers, Sergey

>
> On the other hand there is evidence that is not the case.
>
> John B.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> I've understood from what Justin said the idea is to introduce a standard way for RS to communicate to AS about the tokens issued by the AS. I think it is a good idea, I'd only not focus on the RS-to-3rd party AS communications because it complicates it a bit.
>>
>> Clearly it would be of help to implementers of OAuth2 filters protecting RS, having a new lengthy process to collect the cases seems to be a very administrative idea to me
>>
>> Thanks, Sergey
>>
>>> On 30/07/14 03:54, Phil Hunt wrote:
>>> -100
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On Jul 29, 2014, at 17:52, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu
>>> <mailto:jricher@mit.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reading through this thread, it appears very clear to me that the use
>>>> cases are very well established by a number of existing implementers
>>>> who want to work together to build a common standard. I see no reason
>>>> to delay the work artificially by creating a use case document when
>>>> such a vast array of understanding and interest already exists. Any
>>>> use cases and explanations of applications are welcome to be added to
>>>> the working group draft as it progresses.
>>>>
>>>> -- Justin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/29/2014 8:16 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *George
>>>>> Fletcher
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:25 PM
>>>>> *To:* Phil Hunt; Thomas Broyer
>>>>> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org
>>>>> *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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> George
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Jul 28, 2014, at 17:00, Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com
>>>>>     <mailto:t.broyer@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Yes. This spec is of special interest to the platform we're
>>>>>         building for http://www.oasis-eu.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>         On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
>>>>>         <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net
>>>>>         <mailto:hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>> 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:
>>>>>         http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection/
>>>>>
>>>>>         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.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Ciao
>>>>>         Hannes & Derek
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>         OAuth mailing list
>>>>>         OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>>>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         --
>>>>>         Thomas Broyer
>>>>>         /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/>
>>>>>
>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>         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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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