Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-audience

Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> Wed, 20 January 2016 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sakimura@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 5F7271B2A37 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:47:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 Jza3yLsSBZvp for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22d.google.com (mail-qg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 761741B2A36 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 6so18649835qgy.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:47:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=EyYrHu2K2OVVoAQRFZenKaj/Mg7HNWCZeYUsLARLGgw=; b=L1zlOvP7QWe5hwomA07m4jaexKEQr/LXNAsQ0ZTOn4wb/a/SDDxjD3rzynCavP7UKb pfFAwzkszCfzNISPY//qX2OPqaO7aFjNdU/IHp6JOElTbRRP7a0el72l2/+tg/Bxj3L0 6XG35EH8esexEpNj6D5/pXdMwTGTzmHcBBRmhSL1R1ppS0F4COAeC11H/1COsXSmrHiL ym+XBBgfHxo1d8AMdFtilCrwJKzgqvIM3r1E4UgTLYqkCbA7WTQjfZC33A8Y1o72vATk aNeU0FRH1if1jMN0K4x1SVnJdErCHJr92A/4lV9DgYPWQVah1HZg1ppcSfFpTy4SaVed xwYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=EyYrHu2K2OVVoAQRFZenKaj/Mg7HNWCZeYUsLARLGgw=; b=e9yWVWe+Aes0OeIOwtzVSiSiRNKoe0YvIs1+Sve+uhtyzaMyOOT0qTn+QOWR5Wqt5a 2OOfN264jftK8OadQlsecIgSrqe8gSHbKJL+UkActWPIBowI+BCW0USX0fndaShjmoGp w8Jqp8kxgX8BQRpvmLJ+LaBVUgJWWztUDO9bfHMII3bYBlM1AlkFNDn0G8E5QfdRr0IQ rqEoVc69wn0/yPMzkduISkjybrDMXV2/plFrJMv3W5bXaQG9pI41N+crTdGnlOwuF+e6 flWdrUzIDnG76O3sSepofQsEpgW3yxI8nzDvbHeH7i/4zpEwPYSO27HGRLG8K8mUnrIB rX0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/m6rc80aE9ja4klyDlrCXLZ0IdXjYR9qRbta2x9vwwekKSWfDP75ty2Gp4QnXSGC7zi14vknR30SfuZ40+ce3Mk0Dng==
X-Received: by 10.140.18.136 with SMTP id 8mr48067303qgf.64.1453330046665; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:47:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+k3eCSpWFwyvk=XHP4b_zxzu-zrMYsS-axF6csO90-ahmkueQ@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR03MB4423033D5604E9E36B20C23F5CA0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5CA9073D-BBF7-48BD-BEC5-1F626E8C3818@mit.edu> <8EB68572-DA59-482D-A660-FA6D9848AAD2@oracle.com> <ade5692aa1afa2d9d79b8ac7a55bf150@lodderstedt.net> <5698CB3D.1030306@gmail.com> <69B0E23E-818A-4FE4-81A0-A8106EB6C312@ve7jtb.com> <5698F885.3030009@gmail.com> <569A69A5.7020006@connect2id.com> <A1C1786C-BE13-4D0F-9541-BEAE4DB8F284@mit.edu> <569ABB30.9060703@gmail.com> <569D0AE6.3060708@mit.edu> <569D0E86.60908@gmail.com> <569D1297.2000805@mit.edu> <569D1631.4030705@gmail.com> <569E1804.8010803@gmail.com> <569F60B3.3030501@gmail.com> <569F9955.9030001@gmx.net> <CA+k3eCTzX+DkuEzb5XdTxtouOgkdMfZxp=Ue4ZvDJLf0wCFdPA@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR03MB442A47609A3B5AD87169294F5C20@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <1D483C18-6103-4197-9AF0-D4FD80E8F17E@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <1D483C18-6103-4197-9AF0-D4FD80E8F17E@ve7jtb.com>
From: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 22:47:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CABzCy2BZvvqZxmEGdf1b61Ra52W2jo-vak1gEHQ0_KhKg3aBNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, Michael Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113546422c49ed0529cbc57a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/BiSpaS7KLpI0F22abEfm8E5V8a0>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-audience
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 20 Jan 2016 22:47:30 -0000

+1

Also, I have always thought that it would be good if one could ask for a
particular resource type, and the server could respond with the actual
location of it with the associated access token. This is because it is
often undesirable to tell the client the location of the resource before
the authorization from the privacy point of view.

So, the processing flow in this case will be:


   1. The client request an access to the resource type in the scope of the
   authorization request.
   2. The client request an access token to the resource type to the token
   endpoint with audience/resource/scope parameter.
   3. The token endpoint responds with token response with oauth-meta
   header indicating the URL of the resource as in
    draft-sakimura-oauth-meta.

Best,

Nat


2016年1月21日(木) 7:27 John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>;:

> +1
>
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 7:25 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>;
> wrote:
>
> As mentioned in Prague, Azure Active Directory uses a “resource” request
> parameter to supply the URL of the resource server that the access token is
> intended for.  However, I believe that Google uses scope values for this
> and some Microsoft services are moving towards using scope values as well.
> Sorting this out soon would be good.
>
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org <oauth-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Brian Campbell
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2016 2:18 PM
> *To:* Hannes Tschofenig
> *Cc:* oauth
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-audience
>
>
> There does seem to be a need to provide the client a means of telling the
> AS the place(s) and/or entity(s) where it intends to use the token it's
> asking for. And that it's common enough to warrant it's own small spec.
> This has come up several times before and I think has some consensus behind
> doing it. What needs to happen to move forward?
> The concept shows up in these three different drafts (that I know of
> anyway):
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-oauth-audience-00#section-3 has
> an audience parameter
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution-02#section-3
>  has an aud parameter
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-03#section-2.1 has
> both an audience and a resource resource
>
> All the above apply only to the token request. However, there are ways of
> requesting/obtaining access tokens that don't involve the token endpoint
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.2> so I think it follows
> that  the same facility should be available for the authorization request
> too.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
> hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>; wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> that's a good question. After this document was published the
> functionality had been integrated into the PoP solution document.
> Recently, I got feedback that the functionality should be more generic
> and it is independent of the PoP work.
>
> So, I guess it is a good time to discuss the needed functionality and
> where it should be included.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
>
> On 01/20/2016 11:25 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Given that the draft-tschofenig-oauth-audience [1] has expired, I'm
> > wondering if it is still relevant.
> >
> > I know the token introspection response can provide the audience
> > value(s), but the question is really how a client is associated with a a
> > given audience in the first place. As such [1] may still make sense, for
> > example, I can think of two options:
> > 1. the client audiences are set out of band during the client
> > registration time and all the tokens issued to that client will be
> > restricted accordingly
> > 2. the client is requesting a specific audience during the grant to
> > token exchange as per [1]
> >
> > I guess 1. is how it is done in practice or is 2. is also a valid option
> ?
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Sergey
> >
> >
> > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-oauth-audience-00
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>