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
- [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OA… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Bill Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Mark Dobrinic
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Paul Madsen
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Bill Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Brian Campbell