Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt

[Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]>]

Inline:

2013/7/31 Prateek Mishra <[e-mail]>

>  Nat -
>
> your blog posting is helpful to those of us who are looking for a minimal
> extension of OAuth with
> an authenticator.  Many implementors are seeking a modest extension of
> OAuth, not an entire new protocol
> stack.   I believe that is the point of Phil Hunt's proposal to the OAuth
> committee.
>
> I do have some questions for about the statements made in the blog -
>
> A) Can you direct me to a single OpenID Connect draft specification
> document where steps 1 and 2 are described?
>

Actually, it is not a single spec, that the Standard is referencing others.
The Standard is kind of cluttered because it has 6 response types and three
request types in it.
I suppose it would be much easier for the readers to split them into
coherent pieces, though that means duplicate texts.

The easiest approach here is to read the Basic Client Profile.
http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-basic-1_0-28.html
Then, read OAuth 2.0 Multiple Response Type Encoding Practices
http://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0-08.html .


> B) If I implement steps 1 and 2, do I then have a conformant OpenID
> Connect implementation? Are there no
> other MTI protocol exchanges in OpenID Connect?
>

Yes, for a non-dynamic OpenID Connect Server.

Nat


>
> Thanks,
> prateek
>
>
>
>
>  I have written a short blog post titled "Write an OpenID Connect server
> in three simple steps<http://nat.sakimura.org/2013/07/28/write-openid-connect-server-in-three-simple-steps/>".
>
>
>  Really, there is not much you need to on top of OAuth 2.0.
>
>  It puzzles me why you need to create a draft with only minor variances
> in parameter names.
>
>  e.g.,
> session instead of id_token
> lat instead of iat
> alv instead of acr
> etc.
>
>
>  If you change those parameter names, you will have a conformant profile
> of OpenID Connect.
>
>  Nat
>
>
> 2013/7/31 John Bradley <[e-mail]>
>
>> Connect dosen't require a userinfo endpoint.   It is required for
>> interoperability if you are building an open IdP.   For an enterprise type
>> deployment discovery, registration, userifo are all optional.
>>
>>  The server is required to pass the nonce which is equivalent to a
>> request ID through to the JWT if the client sends it in the request.
>>
>>  Justin is correct.
>>
>>  John B.
>>
>>  On 2013-07-30, at 5:30 PM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>  Forgot reply all.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>  *From:* Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>
>> *Date:* 30 July, 2013 17:25:46 GMT+02:00
>> *To:* "Richer, Justin P." <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* *Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for
>> draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt*
>>
>>  The whole point is authn only. Many do not want or need the userinfo
>> endpoint.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On 2013-07-30, at 17:17, "Richer, Justin P." <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>  What do you mean? You absolutely can implement a compliant OIDC server
>> nearly as simply as this. The things that you're missing I think are
>> necessary for basic interoperable functionality, and are things that other
>> folks using OAuth for authentication have also implemented. Namely:
>>
>>   - Signing the ID token (OIDC specifies the RS256 flavor of JWS, which
>> is easy to do with JWT). Without a signed and verifiable ID token or
>> equivalent, you're asking for all kinds of token injection problems.
>>  - Session management requests (max auth age, auth time)
>>  - Not fall over with other parameters that you don't support (display,
>> prompt, etc).
>>
>>  See here for more information:
>>
>>    http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-messages-1_0.html#ServerMTI
>>
>>  Additionally, something that's really important to support is the User
>> Info Endpoint, so you can actually get user profile information beyond just
>> the simple "someone was here" claim -- this was the real value of Facebook
>> Connect from an RP's perspective. Some people will probably want to use
>> SCIM for this, too, and that's fine.
>>
>>   -- Justin
>>
>>  On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  The oidc specs do not allow this simple an implementation. The spec
>> members have not shown interest in making changes as they say they are too
>> far down the road.
>>
>>  I have tried to make my draft as close as possible to oidc but maybe it
>> shouldn't be clarity wise. I am interested in what the group feels is
>> clearest.
>>
>>  From an ietf perspective the concern is improper use of the 6749 for
>> authn. Is this a bug or gap we need to address?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On 2013-07-30, at 16:46, "Richer, Justin P." <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>  From what I read, you've defined something that uses an OAuth 2 code
>> flow to get an extra token which is specified as a JWT. You named it
>> "session_token" instead of "id_token", and you've left off the User
>> Information Endpoint -- but other than that, this is exactly the Basic
>> Client for OpenID Connect. In other words, if you change the names on
>> things you've got OIDC, but without the capabilities to go beyond a very
>> basic "hey there's a user here" claim. This is the same place that OpenID
>> 2.0 started, and it was very, very quickly extended with SREG, AX, PAPE,
>> and others for it to be useful in the real world of distributed logins.
>> You've also left out discovery and registration which are required for
>> distributed deployments, but I'm guessing that those would be modular
>> components that could be added in (like they are in OIDC).
>>
>>  I've heard complaints that OIDC is complicated, but it's really not.
>> Yes, I agree that the giant stack of documents is intimidating and in my
>> opinion it's a bit of a mess with Messages and Standard split up (but I
>> lost that argument years ago). However, at the core, you've got an OAuth2
>> authorization server that spits out access tokens and id tokens. The id
>> token is a JWT with some known claims (iss, sub, etc) and is issued along
>> side the access token, and its audience is the *client* and not the
>> *protected resource*. The access token is a regular old access token and
>> its format is undefined (so you can use it with an existing OAuth2 server
>> setup, like we have), and it can be used at the User Info Endpoint to get
>> profile information about the user who authenticated. It could also be used
>> for other services if your AS/IdP protects multiple things.
>>
>>  So I guess what I'm missing is what's the value proposition in this
>> spec when we have something that can do this already? And this doesn't seem
>> to do anything different (apart from syntax changes)?
>>
>>   -- Justin
>>
>>  On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:14 AM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>  FYI.  I have been noticing a substantial number of sites acting as
>> OAuth Clients using OAuth to authenticate users.
>>
>>  I know several of us have blogged on the issue over the past year so I
>> won't re-hash it here.  In short, many of us recommended OIDC as the
>> correct methodology.
>>
>>  Never-the-less, I've spoken with a number of service providers who
>> indicate they are not ready to make the jump to OIDC, yet they agree there
>> is a desire to support authentication only (where as OIDC does IDP-like
>> services).
>>
>>  This draft is intended as a minimum authentication only specification.
>>  I've tried to make it as compatible as possible with OIDC.
>>
>>  For now, I've just posted to keep track of the issue so we can address
>> at the next re-chartering.
>>
>>  Happy to answer questions and discuss.
>>
>>     Phil
>>
>>  @independentid
>> www.independentid.com
>>  [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>  *From: *[e-mail]
>>  *Subject: **New Version Notification for
>> draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt*
>>  *Date: *29 July, 2013 9:49:41 AM GMT+02:00
>>  *To: *Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>,
>> Phil Hunt <>
>>
>>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Phil Hunt and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Filename: draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c
>> Revision: 00
>> Title: OAuth 2.0 User Authentication For Client
>> Creation date: 2013-07-29
>> Group: Individual Submission
>> Number of pages: 9
>> URL:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt
>> Status:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c
>> Htmlized:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00
>>
>>
>> Abstract:
>>   This specification defines a new OAuth2 endpoint that enables user
>>   authentication session information to be shared with client
>>   applications.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en