Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and Rechartering

[Justin Richer <[e-mail]>]

Right, so instead of being able to use my authorization endpoint, which 
already authenticates the user and can gather consent, I need to 
implement a new endpoint that's not-quite-OAuth but is almost like it. 
But it's enough to be confusing because sometimes I go to this new 
endpoint endpoint and also get an access token anyway, to use somewhere 
that I'm not sure where. And I'm not sure I can collapse the two 
endpoints and re-use my OAuth infrastructure. After all, I still need to 
use the token endpoint, and by that point my server needs to know which 
endpoint the user went to in the first place to make that switch. As a 
developer, this all sounds horribly convoluted and complicated to track. 
Do I get to re-use any of the components from an authorization endpoint? 
How do I know whether or not to issue the access token if the user goes 
to the authentication endpoint? And then there are the optimizations for 
existing well-known and well-understood use cases: what if my client is 
sitting in the same browser session and just wants to get the user 
assertion directly instead of going through a round trip? Do I need to 
make two round trips if I'm getting a protected API at the same time as 
authn data? Can I use the same response_type functionality and other 
extensions on the authentication endpoint?

In the end, the a4c draft isn't OAuth, it's only OAuth-like, which is 
dangerous and confusing and not something I think the OAuth WG should be 
a part of. And I really just don't see the point of it, unless the goal 
is to pollute the standards space which Connect currently occupies. Is 
Connect perfect? Heck no. But it's far and away the best thing we've had 
in a long time, and it already does every single thing you are asking 
for from this new draft.

  -- Justin

On 5/14/2014 9:43 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
> Sorry I meant to say this is why it has the /authenticate endpoint to 
> indicate the client only wants the users session information.
>
> Phil
>
> @independentid
> www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com>
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
>
> On May 14, 2014, at 6:42 PM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>> Right.  This is why it has a different point because the client does 
>> NOT want a resource token.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> @independentid
>> www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com/>
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 14, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, it's about OAuth compatibility. With OAuth, you get an 
>>> access token to be used at a protected resource. That's what it's 
>>> for, that's what clients do the OAuth dance(s) for. Connect defines 
>>> that protected resource as the userinfo endpoint (ie, "tells the 
>>> client what to do with it"). Connect also defines the id token that 
>>> comes in along side of the bog-standard OAuth token, and Connect is 
>>> turned on and off through the use of bog-standard OAuth scopes. So 
>>> that makes it very, very, very easy to take an OAuth server and turn 
>>> it into a Connect server. I know, I've done just that, and I've 
>>> walked others through the process as well.
>>>
>>> But the a4c draft is using something that's 
>>> almost-but-not-quite-OAuth: You might not get an access token, which 
>>> is going to confuse the heck out of most OAuth clients that I know 
>>> since that's what they're trying to get at in the first place, and 
>>> there's no real way for a client to distinguish its request for 
>>> something with an id_token vs. without. Additionally, in practice, 
>>> that access token is hugely useful. Just look at all of the weird 
>>> OpenID2 and OAuth1 hybrid stuff that people were trying to do back a 
>>> few years ago on top of all the OpenID2 extensions -- this is 
>>> exactly because OpenID2 was built for "authentication only" because 
>>> that's what people thought developers wanted, but it turned out that 
>>> developers wanted a whole lot more than that. This is one main 
>>> reason the Facebook Connect and Twitter's OAuth-based login came 
>>> along and ate everyone's lunch: they gave you authentication, but 
>>> also something useful about the end user.
>>>
>>> All said, it sounds like you want Connect but without the UserInfo 
>>> Endpoint. You'll be glad to know that you can already do that as per 
>>> the MTI definitions of the server:
>>>
>>> http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ServerMTI
>>>
>>> You are free to implement a SCIM endpoint (which, by the way, you'll 
>>> probably need that access_token to access) or no endpoint at all, 
>>> and a compliant client ought to be able to deal with that. In fact, 
>>> there's a way to get just the id_token in Connect if that's all you 
>>> care about, but instead of hiding it inside of an existing flow that 
>>> might return something different depending on (currently-undefined) 
>>> special circumstances, it puts this mode into a separate 
>>> response_type entirely to enforce the point that it is different 
>>> from regular OAuth.
>>>
>>>  -- Justin
>>>
>>> On 5/14/2014 9:24 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
>>>> It isn’t required (or should not be).  This issue is OIDC 
>>>> compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> @independentid
>>>> www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com/>
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How is this functionally different from the a4c draft that also 
>>>>> allows the return of both an id_token and an access token?
>>>>>
>>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/14/2014 9:18 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
>>>>>> That’s not a minimalistic authn only profile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you return both an access token AND an id token than the 
>>>>>> service provide has to implement both and the client has to 
>>>>>> figure out what to do with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @independentid
>>>>>> www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com/>
>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Chuck Mortimore 
>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I had personally requested the OIDC community about six months 
>>>>>>> ago to describe some minimal subset which we could all 
>>>>>>> reasonably implement."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe you're looking for this: 
>>>>>>> http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-basic-1_0.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -cmort
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Prateek Mishra 
>>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Anil,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     the challenge is that OIDC is a rather large set of
>>>>>>>     specifications, and to my knowledge even the core
>>>>>>>     specification has NOT found
>>>>>>>     a complete implementation at any large IdP. I am not talking
>>>>>>>     here about boutique toolkits or startups, I am talking about
>>>>>>>     the folks
>>>>>>>     who have 100s of millions of users. And, BTW, implementing a
>>>>>>>     few arbitrarily selected features from OIDC is not the same
>>>>>>>     as implementing OIDC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     As we all know, the core problem is that of adding an
>>>>>>>     authenticator token to OAuth flows, which is a rather modest
>>>>>>>     extension to OAuth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I had personally requested the OIDC community about six
>>>>>>>     months ago to describe some minimal subset which we could
>>>>>>>     all reasonably implement. I was told that  the specification
>>>>>>>     was "locked down" and fully debugged and so on, so no
>>>>>>>     changes could be made. Imagine my surprise to find that in
>>>>>>>     the final drafts there was a whole new flow - the hybrid
>>>>>>>     flow - that had been added at the last minute. I had never
>>>>>>>     heard of the hybrid flow in the OAuth context - have you? So
>>>>>>>     now you have an even larger specification!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The value of draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-01 is that it
>>>>>>>     describes precisely a minimal extension to OAuth flows to
>>>>>>>     support an authenticator token.  In my experience, this is
>>>>>>>     the subset that most customers and implementors are looking
>>>>>>>     for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - prateek
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Tony/Phil,
>>>>>>>>       any chance you can have this work done at OIDC?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     The reason is that it is commonly understood/accepted now
>>>>>>>>     that OAuth provides authorization related specs while
>>>>>>>>     authentication/profile
>>>>>>>>     related specs are coming from OIDC (which builds on top of
>>>>>>>>     OAuth2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Regards,
>>>>>>>>     Anil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     On 05/14/2014 10:47 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     I agree with Phil on this one, there are implementations
>>>>>>>>>     of this already and much interest
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     *From:*OAuth [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>>>     *Phil Hunt
>>>>>>>>>     *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:32 AM
>>>>>>>>>     *To:* Brian Campbell
>>>>>>>>>     *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Milestone Update and
>>>>>>>>>     Rechartering
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     On the contrary. I and others are interested.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     We are waiting for the charter to pick up the work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Regardless there will be a new draft shortly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Phil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     On May 14, 2014, at 5:24, Brian Campbell
>>>>>>>>>     <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         I would object to 'OAuth Authentication' being picked
>>>>>>>>>         up by the WG as a work item. The starting point draft
>>>>>>>>>         has expired and it hasn't really been discusses since
>>>>>>>>>         Berlin nearly a year ago.  As I recall, there was only
>>>>>>>>>         very limited interest in it even then. I also don't
>>>>>>>>>         believe it fits well with the WG charter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         I would suggest the WG consider picking up 'OAuth
>>>>>>>>>         Symmetric Proof of Possession for Code Extension' for
>>>>>>>>>         which there is an excellent starting point of
>>>>>>>>>         http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sakimura-oauth-tcse-03 -
>>>>>>>>>         it's a relativity simple security enhancement which
>>>>>>>>>         addresses problems currently being encountered in
>>>>>>>>>         deployments of native clients.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
>>>>>>>>>         <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             you might have seen that we pushed the assertion
>>>>>>>>>             documents and the JWT
>>>>>>>>>             documents to the IESG today. We have also updated
>>>>>>>>>             the milestones on the
>>>>>>>>>             OAuth WG page.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             This means that we can plan to pick up new work in
>>>>>>>>>             the group.
>>>>>>>>>             We have sent a request to Kathleen to change the
>>>>>>>>>             milestone for the OAuth
>>>>>>>>>             security mechanisms to use the proof-of-possession
>>>>>>>>>             terminology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             We also expect an updated version of the dynamic
>>>>>>>>>             client registration
>>>>>>>>>             spec incorporating last call feedback within about
>>>>>>>>>             2 weeks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             We would like you to think about adding the
>>>>>>>>>             following milestones to the
>>>>>>>>>             charter as part of the re-chartering effort:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             -----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Nov 2014 Submit 'Token introspection' to the IESG
>>>>>>>>>             for consideration as a
>>>>>>>>>             Proposed Standard
>>>>>>>>>             Starting point: <draft-richer-oauth-introspection-04>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Jan 2015 Submit 'OAuth Authentication' to the IESG
>>>>>>>>>             for consideration as
>>>>>>>>>             a Proposed Standard
>>>>>>>>>             Starting point: <draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-01>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Jan 2015 Submit 'Token Exchange' to the IESG for
>>>>>>>>>             consideration as a
>>>>>>>>>             Proposed Standard
>>>>>>>>>             Starting point: <draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             -----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             We also updated the charter text to reflect the
>>>>>>>>>             current situation. Here
>>>>>>>>>             is the proposed text:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             -----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Charter for Working Group
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             The Web Authorization (OAuth) protocol allows a
>>>>>>>>>             user to grant a
>>>>>>>>>             third-party Web site or application access to the
>>>>>>>>>             user's protected
>>>>>>>>>             resources, without necessarily revealing their
>>>>>>>>>             long-term credentials,
>>>>>>>>>             or even their identity. For example, a
>>>>>>>>>             photo-sharing site that
>>>>>>>>>             supports OAuth could allow its users to use a
>>>>>>>>>             third-party printing Web
>>>>>>>>>             site to print their private pictures, without
>>>>>>>>>             allowing the printing
>>>>>>>>>             site to gain full control of the user's account
>>>>>>>>>             and without having the
>>>>>>>>>             user share his or her photo-sharing sites'
>>>>>>>>>             long-term credential with
>>>>>>>>>             the printing site.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             The OAuth 2.0 protocol suite encompasses
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             * a protocol for obtaining access tokens from an
>>>>>>>>>             authorization
>>>>>>>>>             server with the resource owner's consent,
>>>>>>>>>             * protocols for presenting these access tokens to
>>>>>>>>>             resource server
>>>>>>>>>             for access to a protected resource,
>>>>>>>>>             * guidance for securely using OAuth 2.0,
>>>>>>>>>             * the ability to revoke access tokens,
>>>>>>>>>             * standardized format for security tokens encoded
>>>>>>>>>             in a JSON format
>>>>>>>>>               (JSON Web Token, JWT),
>>>>>>>>>             * ways of using assertions with OAuth, and
>>>>>>>>>             * a dynamic client registration protocol.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             The working group also developed security schemes
>>>>>>>>>             for presenting
>>>>>>>>>             authorization tokens to access a protected
>>>>>>>>>             resource. This led to the
>>>>>>>>>             publication of the bearer token, as well as work
>>>>>>>>>             that remains to be
>>>>>>>>>             completed on proof-of-possession and token exchange.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             The ongoing standardization effort within the
>>>>>>>>>             OAuth working group will
>>>>>>>>>             focus on enhancing interoperability and
>>>>>>>>>             functionality of OAuth
>>>>>>>>>             deployments, such as a standard for a token
>>>>>>>>>             introspection service and
>>>>>>>>>             standards for additional security of OAuth requests.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             -----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Feedback appreciated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Ciao
>>>>>>>>>             Hannes & Derek
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>             OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>>>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         -- 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Ping Identity logo <https://www.pingidentity.com/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         	
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         *Brian Campbell*
>>>>>>>>>         Portfolio Architect
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         *@*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         	
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         phone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         	
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         +1 720.317.2061 <tel:[phone]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Connect with us…
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         twitter logo <https://twitter.com/pingidentity>youtube
>>>>>>>>>         logo
>>>>>>>>>         <https://www.youtube.com/user/PingIdentityTV>LinkedIn
>>>>>>>>>         logo <https://www.linkedin.com/company/21870>Facebook
>>>>>>>>>         logo
>>>>>>>>>         <https://www.facebook.com/pingidentitypage>Google+
>>>>>>>>>         logo
>>>>>>>>>         <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114266977739397708540>slideshare
>>>>>>>>>         logo <http://www.slideshare.net/PingIdentity>flipboard
>>>>>>>>>         logo <http://flip.it/vjBF7>rss feed icon
>>>>>>>>>         <https://www.pingidentity.com/blogs/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Register for Cloud Identity Summit 2014 | Modern
>>>>>>>>>         Identity Revolution | 19–23 July, 2014 | Monterey, CA
>>>>>>>>>         <https://www.cloudidentitysummit.com/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>         OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>     OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>>>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>     OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>     OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>