Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection

Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sberyozkin@gmail.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 3E11721F873D for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:38:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.202, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 GO1X8zwd56Fh for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com (mail-lb0-f173.google.com [209.85.217.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF0021F86FB for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id gf7so6582605lbb.32 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:38:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IG4N962r/J+riYVWM5ht50GGMLsfe6UACf3zI0o6RaY=; b=wglEEjbg0R4t6tKH0xe0SJHWO1844nVBHXoKyAaNFYsog5VugvZCtJ2UgUJp73to2N XNIctBjjpV+9TXoCSJOWf9T2bYtjvc9J11jWWgldEWk3P/JAG73BYkCAexj9evilEaMX P4LISg+YAyNaiYMxCkaZlckxxiNygZLsypIgNBSYTNPD8Zg0v0OEpPlJmtgWCf/6f4JR tEyTVply3cBPmBXipgpC2VOENaeZsuNFsvXiLIQpYV1sA73nX+RPkNEMJR2s8Gzbs1su 7gZIY3fzzRyvoADjthHM+gJgBvK68vwWZfWfQhWscuFDZ46nnMN31Qt1YaCNpqWe1FlZ wpzQ==
X-Received: by 10.112.50.201 with SMTP id e9mr981583lbo.82.1359041907202; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.5] ([89.100.140.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oy10sm2254139lab.8.2013.01.24.07.38.25 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <51015560.3030607@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:38:08 +0000
From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
References: <CAHA4TYtCG+o0AZzh9e-3nb6gKLaWFeJuQfBxHVmUDH5Aj+TdpQ@mail.gmail.com> <50FEE1BF.5050200@mitre.org> <-6134323107835063788@unknownmsgid> <510005F5.6000004@mitre.org> <4a060479b5374e8ba58d3c9e1b15d917@BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <51001B5C.80407@mitre.org> <9a1d3f9d095e4f14b55ff99c9cf1799e@BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <51001D61.1060000@mitre.org> <1b7dbe92b69e4e51bbb0012f06381756@BY2PR03MB041.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <51002656.2050900@mitre.org> <5101135F.5060000@gmail.com> <51014484.50001@mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <51014484.50001@mitre.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection
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: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:38:30 -0000

On 24/01/13 14:26, Justin Richer wrote:
>
> On 01/24/2013 05:56 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>
>> I like this most, would rename it to say
>>
>> /oauth/client/registration
>> or
>> /oauth/client-registration
>>
>> etc
>>
>> and reword the spec such that it will let those who implement do it
>> with one endpoint or many, whatever is preferred
>>
>
> That's the whole point of this discussion -- I don't believe you can
> have it both ways.
>
> In one way, you say there are three endpoints and, if you're keeping
> with the rest of OAuth, you don't give them official URL patterns that
> they must follow. How the client gets those endpoints is up to discovery
> or configuration, but the client has an internal map from each bit of
> functionality to a particular URL that's specific to the service, much
> in the same way that the client today has to map the authorization and
> token endpoints. In the other method, you've got one endpoint that the
> client sends a well-defined parameter to in order to accomplish the same
> goal.
>
> So if you allow both at once, does a client send the "operation"
> parameter or not? Is it looking for one url or three to store in its
> configuration? I don't think this level of flexibility buys you anything
> useful, and I strongly believe that it will deeply hurt the
> functionality of dynamic registration if it's allowed.
>
> As it stands today, you can still make the URL whatever you want. If we
> went with three endpoints you could also make those URLs whatever you
> wanted. Nobody has yet pointed out to me what the actual benefit is of
> making both valid.
>
> I personally prefer the method of three endpoint URLs because it's
> cleaner and semantically equivalent, but I am hesitant to change that
> behavior unless there's strong working group support for it. I haven't
> seen real support for it yet -- it's not a good call to make it fully
> RESTful, and it's not a good call to leave it undefined. A client MUST
> have a very clear recipe of what to do on startup for this to work in
> the wild.

Basically, I haven't thought deeply about it. What I meant was that with

/oauth/client/registration
/oauth/client/somethingelse

I can implement easily by having a single endpoint or 2 ones (with the 
endpoint not necessarily meaning it runs in its own container), but the 
client won't know, I'm assuming 'the endpoint' does not mean its URI 
will need to have a unique port.
Sorry if I've missed the point :-)

Sergey



>
> -- Justin
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> help multitenancy? How does it even affect that use case? Consider that
>>> the base URL for all of these is completely up to the host environment
>>> (nothing is bound to the root URL). Consider that clients still have to
>>> know what the URL (or URLs) are, in either case. Consider that clients
>>> still need to know how to manage all the parameters and responses.
>>>
>>> If anything, keeping it the way that it is with a single URL could be
>>> argued to help multitenancy because setting up routing to multiple URL
>>> endpoints can sometimes be problematic in hosted environments. However,
>>> OAuth already defines a bunch of endpoints, and we have to define at
>>> least one more with this extension, so I'm not convinced that having
>>> three with specific functions is really any different from having one
>>> with three functions from a development, deployment, and implementation
>>> perspective. I can tell you from experience that in our own server code,
>>> the difference is trivial. (And from OAuth1 experience, you can always
>>> have a query parameter as part of your endpoint URL if you need to. You
>>> might hate yourself for doing it that way, but nothing says your base
>>> URL can't already have parameters on it. A client just needs to know how
>>> to appropriately tack its parameters onto an existing URL, and any HTTP
>>> client worth its salt will know how to augment a query parameter set
>>> with new items.)
>>>
>>> The *real* difference between the two approaches is a philosophical
>>> design one. The former overloads one URL with multiple functions
>>> switched by a flag, the latter uses the URL itself as an implicit flag.
>>> Under the hood, these could (and in many cases will) be all served by
>>> the same chunks of code. The only difference is how this switch in
>>> functionality is presented.
>>>
>>>
>>> With that said, can somebody please explain to me how allowing *both* of
>>> these as options simultaneously (what I understand Tony to be
>>> suggesting) is a good idea, or how multitenancy even comes into play?
>>> Because I am completely not seeing how these are related.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -- Justin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/23/2013 12:46 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>>>> It will not work the way you have it, as people do multi-tendency
>>>> different and they are already stuck with the method that they have
>>>> chosen, so they need the flexability, to restrict this is nuts as
>>>> people won't use it.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher@mitre.org]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:27 AM
>>>> To: Anthony Nadalin
>>>> Cc: Nat Sakimura; Shiu Fun Poon;oauth@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection
>>>>
>>>> I completely disagree with this assessment. Multi-tenancy will work
>>>> just fine (or even better) if everyone uses the same pattern.
>>>> Telling someone "it might be three different urls or it might be all
>>>> one url with a parameter" is just asking for a complete disaster.
>>>> What does the flexibility of allowing two approaches actually
>>>> accomplish?
>>>>
>>>> You can argue about the merits of either approach, but having both
>>>> as unspecified options for registration, which is meant to help
>>>> things get going in a cold-boot environment, is just plain nuts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Justin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/23/2013 12:21 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>>>>> Registration has to work in a multi-tenant environment so flexibility
>>>>> is needed
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher@mitre.org]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:18 AM
>>>>> To: Anthony Nadalin
>>>>> Cc: Nat Sakimura; Shiu Fun Poon;oauth@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection
>>>>>
>>>>> Because then nobody would know how to actually use the thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, this is a key place where this kind of flexibility
>>>>> is a very bad thing. Registration needs to work one fairly
>>>>> predictable way.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Justin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/23/2013 12:14 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>>>>>> Why not just have a physical and logical endpoint options
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From:oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Justin Richer
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:47 AM
>>>>>> To: Nat Sakimura
>>>>>> Cc: Shiu Fun Poon;oauth@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Concerning OAuth introspection
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which brings up an interesting question for the Registration doc:
>>>>>> right now, it's set up as a single endpoint with three operations.
>>>>>> We could instead define three endpoints for the different operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've not been keen to make that deep of a cutting change to it,
>>>>>> but it would certainly be cleaner and more RESTful API design.
>>>>>> What do others think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Justin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/22/2013 08:05 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>>>>>>> "Action" goes against REST principle.
>>>>>>> I do not think it is a good idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =nat via iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jan 23, 2013 4:00、Justin Richer<jricher@mitre.org> のメッセージ:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (CC'ing the working group)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the "action/operation" flag would accomplish.
>>>>>>>> The idea behind having different endpoints in OAuth is that they
>>>>>>>> each do different kinds of things. The only "action/operation"
>>>>>>>> that I had envisioned for the introspection endpoint is
>>>>>>>> introspection itself: "I have a token, what does it mean?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that client_id and client_secret *can* already be used at
>>>>>>>> this endpoint if the server supports that as part of their
>>>>>>>> client credentials setup. The examples use HTTP Basic with
>>>>>>>> client id and secret right now. Basically, the client can
>>>>>>>> authenticate however it wants, including any of the methods that
>>>>>>>> OAuth2 allows on the token endpoint. It could also authenticate
>>>>>>>> with an access token. At least, that's the intent of the
>>>>>>>> introspection draft -- if that's unclear, I'd be happy to accept
>>>>>>>> suggested changes to clarify this text.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Justin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/22/2013 01:00 PM, Shiu Fun Poon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Justin,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This spec is looking good..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thing I would like to recommend is to add "action"/"operation"
>>>>>>>>> to the request. (and potentially add client_id and client_secret)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So the request will be like :
>>>>>>>>> token REQUIRED
>>>>>>>>> operation (wording to be determine) OPTIONAL inquire (default)
>>>>>>>>> | revoke ...
>>>>>>>>> resource_id OPTIONAL
>>>>>>>>> client_id OPTIONAL
>>>>>>>>> client_secret OPTIONAL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And for the OAuth client information, it should be an optional
>>>>>>>>> parameter (in case it is a public client or client is
>>>>>>>>> authenticated with SSL mutual authentication).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please consider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ShiuFun
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>