IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Authorization Grant Interval

Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> Mon, 03 June 2019 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron@parecki.com>
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 9C6B0120178 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=parecki-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 CK4D5QagnzdS for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (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 04034120145 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id k8so14956425iot.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 10:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parecki-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eIDjsikfZLYrn6uWFmzHu143GSMP0LRnK4wBxCWBzZc=; b=VUSNi1kgdgDfkTiVAEM/fAOtJa+wYGCBIvS2QcOR4XpQjYjkRv1nVEPTyg2tWd6ykP QWMaKlou7/IhINCeJfWwv5znM8V89DmEVujOo3Su5BQuayd6uzjnRGLGBMUFPseCzSqA EthS8g5nEeY1HylH/fSnbEouRs7YNe6ULqauVSeR6FvJTpnzD3HuC9RcY7hJX7xZmdRX QYKt3BvClxDLaTDzUuM+Isa0Iq/RuspB1skAsIE1qzsoc+A6yfBQw3/hcHV9mlIB1pQl KyYjQUhadGXhlOTBcQNt14NVzuj3/ucK1yjn9PtMShp1tgtSW5hQawRhevcR/54HULzs 66sQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eIDjsikfZLYrn6uWFmzHu143GSMP0LRnK4wBxCWBzZc=; b=j2sLWR1C3FsylAVcLFMFbh4KKyWCQgYKuNLIodtav3IDbgsczdBIzrqtiAknnt5/le EIjnyrhtphik3aUzsm0bsKcGHpi9T+59dF5DF/INZN9f9pOcGVZJeBNNAHFm8Ei9nhMb 0eAP/H30SmKlyKBxjLxXXUd71PZAX4J3i6t1X/DjB8zu16cgPB2etcF1qRN4HxNP/sGE oiGVqEN4zVL/gsRf+YMEZqa59Nm24k2QBSw4M5JSIltSm9BCZovWMNFsdYNSHe4FQilv bjIDjZ9QI+x2c57h00I0oEwkEe48V/ZEMrJ7FlY4etjVfxx++7ZEnZajvIWvZr6mAujP sJjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX8SOFjY/ruMlwM18aHwE+HqjJ2jMkTOJOzyC09qyVmnV76x36A 1yK3nrc27cgBUVm8CZBvm0lgVvNp2co=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyYe7efnSaTSPVt5GH23asHNfNuTK10VZ8chZB11a1nrRUuCh47HwTbBzQDGvfziJMBuPExVw==
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:9401:: with SMTP id q1mr1143414ioj.276.1559581460996; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 10:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-f172.google.com (mail-it1-f172.google.com. [209.85.166.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 14sm6727223itl.1.2019.06.03.10.04.19 for <oauth@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Jun 2019 10:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-f172.google.com with SMTP id i21so8968530ita.5 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 10:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:660c:8f:: with SMTP id t15mr930261itj.107.1559581459770; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 10:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM7dPt0nS=+6oACUTc=sXnw3dpEqMB3ETq03iYnM1HsLv2_OQg@mail.gmail.com> <CE182107-09A2-49EB-9CBD-7354F051D2FA@authlete.com> <CAM7dPt2C=xnpXySpJnPW4vBGX-B4Nmnsthbxtvx+yPqMQXviKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM7dPt2C=xnpXySpJnPW4vBGX-B4Nmnsthbxtvx+yPqMQXviKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 10:04:08 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAGBSGjokV9k-4=FShSxkPzU1td5WKmBx6VETrp7SsauTmo_i-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGBSGjokV9k-4=FShSxkPzU1td5WKmBx6VETrp7SsauTmo_i-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com>
Cc: Joseph Heenan <joseph@authlete.com>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e87419058a6e5a75"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/E8QrJuM3u-uyElsj2ZEUTOc7WBo>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Authorization Grant Interval
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 17:04:25 -0000

Is there something wrong with using the existing error code defined for
this?

>    slow_down
>      A variant of "authorization_pending", the authorization request is
>      still pending and polling should continue, but the interval MUST
>      be increased by 5 seconds for this and all subsequent requests.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-15#section-3.5

----
Aaron Parecki
aaronparecki.com
@aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>



On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:55 AM Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Joseph,
>
> Thank you for the information, this what I was also thinking. It would be
> nice if this can be defined in the specification itself, maybe as a
> recommendation as there can be wrongly written client applications or even
> if some party is trying to do a brute force attack.
>
> Best Regards,
> Janak
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:40 PM Joseph Heenan <joseph@authlete.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Janak,
>>
>> Interestingly this came up when discussing the CIBA specification (which
>> builds upon device authorization grant to some extent) recently:
>> https://bitbucket.org/openid/mobile/issues/135/token-endpoint-response-when-client-polls
>>
>> The thought that group came up with is that returning ‘invalid_request’
>> would be appropriate - ideally appropriate error_description to make it
>> easy to understand what’s going on.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>> > On 21 May 2019, at 06:21, Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > In the OAuth2 Device Authorization Grant, what would be an appropriate
>> response if the client does not respect the set polling interval and keeps
>> on polling with a lower interval?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Best Regards,
>> >
>> > Janak Amarasena
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email