Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02.txt

Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> Tue, 12 February 2013 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jricher@mitre.org>
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 B974621F8B6D for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:24:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HiQGFP9WFNsZ for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:24:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEC721F8B3B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 201EB53117E2; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:24:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (imccas03.mitre.org [129.83.29.80]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8CA1F17B1; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:24:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [10.146.15.29] (129.83.31.58) by IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (129.83.29.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:24:13 -0500
Message-ID: <511A5062.5010108@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:23:30 -0500
From: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Harrington <richard@maymount.com>
References: <20130206192420.32698.21027.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5112AE0B.1080501@mitre.org> <CAJV9qO_8-4FowrXK=ae-+xMjiJFP04ryVMLQ8SGUH8kp3PHrLg@mail.gmail.com> <5113C3AA.1040701@mitre.org> <CAJV9qO8BVV57eAb5kUNes15AYOpUKqw5XWQswh-FJA=b1pPgSA@mail.gmail.com> <5113DDB2.7060805@mitre.org> <CAJV9qO_gM1oera9ae9sqh9n17e-ZLKuC2pmsZwhq-RmFcMyqHA@mail.gmail.com> <51196777.6000502@mitre.org> <CAJV9qO-5bWZbNUfCmaqYBQoy-qwNaSZFOsO9GL3CrbSejwVTzw@mail.gmail.com> <F6595A40-6B4E-4718-ABB5-694CA975C4DB@maymount.com>
In-Reply-To: <F6595A40-6B4E-4718-ABB5-694CA975C4DB@maymount.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080204030402040100020608"
X-Originating-IP: [129.83.31.58]
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02.txt
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: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:24:19 -0000

OK, I can see the wisdom in changing this term.

I picked "valid" because I wanted a simple "boolean" value that would 
require no additional parsing or string-matching on the client's behalf, 
and I'd like to stick with that. OAuth is built with the assumption that 
clients need to be able to recover from invalid tokens at any stage, so 
I think a simple yes/no is the right step here.

That said, I think you're both right that "valid" seems to have caused a 
bit of confusion. I don't want to go with "revoked" because I'd rather 
have the "token is OK" be the positive boolean value.

Would "valid_token" be more clear? Or do we need a different adjective 
all together?

  -- Justin

On 02/11/2013 08:02 PM, Richard Harrington wrote:
> Have you considered "status" instead of "valid"?  It could have values 
> like "active", "expired", and "revoked".
>
> Is it worthwhile including the status of the client also?  For 
> example, a client application could be disabled, temporarily or 
> permanently, and thus disabling its access tokens as well.
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Prabath Siriwardena <prabath@wso2.com 
> <mailto:prabath@wso2.com>> wrote:
>
>> I guess confusion is with 'valid' parameter is in the response..
>>
>> I thought this will be helpful to standardize the communication 
>> between Resource Server and the Authorization Server..
>>
>> I would suggest we completely remove "valid" from the response - or 
>> define it much clearly..
>>
>> May be can add "revoked" with a boolean attribute..
>>
>> Thanks & regards,
>> -Prabath
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org 
>> <mailto:jricher@mitre.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On 02/08/2013 12:51 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote:
>>>     Hi Justin,
>>>
>>>     I have couple of questions related to "valid" parameter...
>>>
>>>     This endpoint can be invoked by the Resource Server in runtime...
>>
>>     That's correct.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     In that case what is exactly meant by the "resource_id" in request ?
>>
>>     The resource_id field is a service-specific string that basically
>>     lets the resource server provide some context to the request to
>>     the auth server. There have been some other suggestions like
>>     client IP address, but I wanted to put this one in because it
>>     seemed to be a common theme. The client is trying to do
>>     *something* with the token, after all, and the rights,
>>     permissions, and metadata associated with the token could change
>>     based on that. Since the Introspection endpoint is all about
>>     getting that metadata back to the PR, this seemed like a good idea.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     IMO a token to be valid depends on set of criteria based on it's
>>>     type..
>>>
>>>     For a Bearer token..
>>>
>>>     1. Token should not be expired
>>>     2. Token should not be revoked.
>>>     3. The scope the token issued should match with the scope
>>>     required for the resource.
>>>
>>>     For a MAC token...
>>>
>>>     1. Token not expired (mac id)
>>>     2. Token should not be revoked
>>>     3. The scope the token issued should match with the scope
>>>     required for the resource.
>>>     4. HMAC check should be valid
>>>
>>>     There are similar conditions for SAML bearer too..
>>
>>     This isn't really true. The SAML bearer token is fully
>>     self-contained and doesn't change based on other parameters in
>>     the message, unlike MAC. Same with JWT. When it hands a SAML or
>>     JWT token to the AS, the PR has given *everything* the server
>>     needs to check that token's validity and use.
>>
>>     MAC signatures change with every message, and they're done across
>>     several components of the HTTP message. Therefor, the HMAC check
>>     for MAC style tokens will still need to be done by the protected
>>     resource. Introspection would help in the case that the signature
>>     validated just fine, but the token might have expired. Or you
>>     need to know what scopes apply. Introspection isn't to fully
>>     validate the call to the protected resource -- if that were the
>>     case, the PR would have to send some kind of encapsulated version
>>     of the original request. Otherwise, the AS won't have all of the
>>     information it needs to check the MAC.
>>
>>
>>     I think what you're describing is ultimately *not* what the
>>     introspection endpoint is intended to do. If that's unclear from
>>     the document, can you please suggest text that would help clear
>>     the use case up? I wouldn't want it to be ambiguous.
>>
>>      -- Justin
>>
>>
>>>
>>>     Thanks & regards,
>>>     -Prabath
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Justin Richer
>>>     <jricher@mitre.org <mailto:jricher@mitre.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         It validates the token, which would be either the token
>>>         itself in the case of Bearer or the token "id" part of
>>>         something more complex like MAC. It doesn't directly
>>>         validate the usage of the token, that's still up to the PR
>>>         to do that.
>>>
>>>         I nearly added a "token type" field in this draft, but held
>>>         back because there are several kinds of "token type" that
>>>         people talk about in OAuth. First, there's "Bearer" vs.
>>>         "MAC" vs. "HOK", or what have you. Then within Bearer you
>>>         have "JWT" or "SAML" or "unstructured blob". Then you've
>>>         also got "access" vs. "refresh" and other flavors of token,
>>>         like the id_token in OpenID Connect.
>>>
>>>         Thing is, the server running the introspection endpoint will
>>>         probably know *all* of these. But should it tell the client?
>>>         If so, which of the three, and what names should the fields be?
>>>
>>>          -- Justin
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 02/07/2013 11:26 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote:
>>>>         Okay.. I was thinking this could be used as a way to
>>>>         validate the token as well. BTW even in this case shouldn't
>>>>         communicate the type of token to AS? For example in the
>>>>         case of SAML profile - it could be SAML token..
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks & regards,
>>>>         -Prabath
>>>>
>>>>         On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Justin Richer
>>>>         <jricher@mitre.org <mailto:jricher@mitre.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             "valid" might not be the best term, but it's meant to
>>>>             be a field where the server says "yes this token is
>>>>             still good" or "no this token isn't good anymore". We
>>>>             could instead do this with HTTP codes or something but
>>>>             I went with a pure JSON response.
>>>>
>>>>              -- Justin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On 02/06/2013 10:47 PM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote:
>>>>>             Hi Justin,
>>>>>
>>>>>             I believe this is addressing one of the key missing
>>>>>             part in OAuth 2.0...
>>>>>
>>>>>             One question - I guess this was discussed already...
>>>>>
>>>>>             In the spec - in the introspection response it has the
>>>>>             attribute "valid" - this is basically the validity of
>>>>>             the token provided in the request.
>>>>>
>>>>>             Validation criteria depends on the token and well as
>>>>>             token type ( Bearer, MAC..).
>>>>>
>>>>>             In the spec it seems like it's coupled with Bearer
>>>>>             token type... But I guess, by adding "token_type" to
>>>>>             the request we can remove this dependency.
>>>>>
>>>>>             WDYT..?
>>>>>
>>>>>             Thanks & regards,
>>>>>             -Prabath
>>>>>
>>>>>             On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Justin Richer
>>>>>             <jricher@mitre.org <mailto:jricher@mitre.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Updated introspection draft based on recent
>>>>>                 comments. Changes include:
>>>>>
>>>>>                  - "scope" return parameter now follows RFC6749
>>>>>                 format instead of JSON array
>>>>>                  - "subject" -> "sub", and "audience" -> "aud", to
>>>>>                 be parallel with JWT claims
>>>>>                  - clarified what happens if the authentication is bad
>>>>>
>>>>>                  -- Justin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>                 Subject: 	New Version Notification for
>>>>>                 draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02.txt
>>>>>                 Date: 	Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:24:20 -0800
>>>>>                 From: 	<internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>>>                 <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>>>                 To: 	<jricher@mitre.org> <mailto:jricher@mitre.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 A new version of I-D, draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02.txt
>>>>>                 has been successfully submitted by Justin Richer and posted to the
>>>>>                 IETF repository.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Filename:	 draft-richer-oauth-introspection
>>>>>                 Revision:	 02
>>>>>                 Title:		 OAuth Token Introspection
>>>>>                 Creation date:	 2013-02-06
>>>>>                 WG ID:		 Individual Submission
>>>>>                 Number of pages: 6
>>>>>                 URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02.txt
>>>>>                 Status:http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection
>>>>>                 Htmlized:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02
>>>>>                 Diff:http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Abstract:
>>>>>                     This specification defines a method for a client or protected
>>>>>                     resource to query an OAuth authorization server to determine meta-
>>>>>                     information about an OAuth token.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                                                                                                    
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>>>                 OAuth mailing list
>>>>>                 OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>>>>>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>             -- 
>>>>>             Thanks & Regards,
>>>>>             Prabath
>>>>>
>>>>>             Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732>
>>>>>
>>>>>             http://blog.facilelogin.com
>>>>>             http://RampartFAQ.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         -- 
>>>>         Thanks & Regards,
>>>>         Prabath
>>>>
>>>>         Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732>
>>>>
>>>>         http://blog.facilelogin.com
>>>>         http://RampartFAQ.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Thanks & Regards,
>>>     Prabath
>>>
>>>     Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732>
>>>
>>>     http://blog.facilelogin.com
>>>     http://RampartFAQ.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Prabath
>>
>> Mobile : +94 71 809 6732
>>
>> http://blog.facilelogin.com
>> http://RampartFAQ.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth