Return-Path: 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 7A4361202F7 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:09:11 -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=zmartzone-eu.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 sikKZ2PWwozs for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (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 B37AB120288 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id x22so34297105qtp.12 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:09:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zmartzone-eu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iqktNLGICu1y+HWZcSJ+Oit4VfP7fSm4VtSh7yWtxmw=; b=CcGBcJAlObltxLoLHvJXRYccCR1nQFmvVRIaDhr7p/Idv7jWf832GuEYr4X78CyRGV 8j8IVt85Gz3Qt9Dt8txeGE8MwHwS2NrnMyLxKqZ99O4mFrIlzqkZo94yIChkRA5B6wt5 s5jk8J8DNeRctLpcoEpvzJzJ+Jd3pJ02Taz6UB53rCjSPnUIaD1Lv3IB/zxfBaIYHPab 4eUJxOdZSQe3X7EcJ2HOnTGomRgVeMh1Pu29rsjw9ucTyBZIR/aHL4ybj72C4Zx5sNng WH9xgNfrtSJh5qZMTBV/J0wlYquNoGaCy9scJKaTxM0BsJvereKVMqyc5lX7pKs9HOMz Edsg== 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=iqktNLGICu1y+HWZcSJ+Oit4VfP7fSm4VtSh7yWtxmw=; b=fodH2cuNi55Dm0sz9q5Xg0/NSb3GKHhWCduXqtwgi/gQwthWul/OxFy/fw37Q8+gKy 6STGFYGpcSZEFCEDn/AeUQ+gy6Jauaiyi5g1/F/gh6KbBy1ykf2da4wVGhL4r/3r2dNx 3qno+/LdgMiPURE6ulSXyaz8Rlw+VnaOHqxbqylIGUZevBmzhyFWwMpgHjxpk+kcb1u0 yDuAlH92FOihhUOhrNZ6MC9XSm0mTZgArBAm8mD87UHaAwuVG1x/xQTGxawZYuGABtok teUOoZyKLLD7GPRDwAMEsZQsP4Bda2eWkaVP6rQmaPorvUQXeC1dkwQY//OhsiDpOeVO wB/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX12ghlkSa04ehsz90uJaNtql73UEkwmf3/XQ/Mw9o1FY1zbR+a 6dQ9mc+j+HRr+6wyzVdcAbb4vNjpnIoxUt+g95IxCQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJwjdbgykMZUYTrSv5WAVaNkCTom1Onu6HbLFTatWCEnTuTuIzEXFqMs5lPKjg3q95BnKzVhOqw5zC/e8fmV4= X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4a92:: with SMTP id h18mr51376499qvx.235.1563815345050; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:09:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <67ed81f2-77dc-4acc-a499-2772c5fa4a85@getmailbird.com> In-Reply-To: <67ed81f2-77dc-4acc-a499-2772c5fa4a85@getmailbird.com> From: Hans Zandbelt Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:08:52 +0200 Message-ID: To: Brock Allen Cc: Leo Tohill , oauth@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022e97f058e4822f7" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] not using oauth for this architecture in oauth for browser based apps. X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: OAUTH WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:09:16 -0000 --00000000000022e97f058e4822f7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +1, as discussed before Hans. On Mon, Jul 22, 2019, 18:25 Brock Allen wrote: > I think the implication is that the server-side would use something like > OIDC to the token server in order to establish the identity of the user. > The difference is that this would be driven from the server-side piece of > the application, as any other normal server-side client would. The result > would then simply be a cookie-based authentication session in the client, > and any JS code would leverage the http only, same-site cookie for Ajax > calls. > > -Brock > > On 7/21/2019 10:22:38 PM, Leo Tohill wrote: > The advice for the architectural pattern "JavaScript served from a common > domain as the resource server" reads: > > "For simple system architectures, such as when the JavaScript application > is served > from a domain that can share cookies with the domain of the API (resource > server), it > may be a better decision to avoid using OAuth entirely, and instead use > session > authentication to communicate directly with the API." > > I can agree that session authentication could be best here, but how was > the user authenticated in order to create the trusted session? Wouldn't > that/shouldn't that still use an oauth flow to collect credentials? > > We need to be clear on the distinction between browser based apps that > hold the token(s) in the browser space, vs. those that don't. I agree that > with this > "common domain" architecture, the tokens should not be held in the > browser, but it doesn't follow that oauth should not be used at all. > > Leo > > > _______________________________________________ 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 > --00000000000022e97f058e4822f7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1, as discussed before

Hans.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019, 18:25 Brock Allen <brockallen@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 I think the implication is that the= server-side would use something like OIDC to the token server in order to = establish the identity of the user. The difference is that this would be dr= iven from the server-side piece of the application, as any other normal ser= ver-side client would. The result would then simply be a cookie-based authe= ntication session in the client, and any JS code would leverage the http on= ly, same-site cookie for Ajax calls.=C2=A0

-Brock

On 7/21/= 2019 10:22:38 PM, Leo Tohill <leotohill@gmail.com> wrote:

Th= e advice for the architectural pattern "JavaScript served from a commo= n domain as the resource server"=C2=A0 reads:

=
"For simple system architectures, such as when the JavaScript app= lication is served
from a domain that can share cookies with the domain = of the API (resource server), it
may be a better decision to avoid using= OAuth entirely, and instead use session
authentication to communicate d= irectly with the API."

I can agree that sessi= on authentication could be best here, but how was the user authenticated in= order to create the trusted session?=C2=A0 Wouldn't that/shouldn't= that still use an oauth flow to collect credentials?

<= div>We need to be clear on the distinction between browser based apps that = hold the token(s) in the browser space, vs. those that don't.=C2=A0 I a= gree that with this
"common domain" architecture, the tokens = should not be held in the browser, but it doesn't follow that oauth sho= uld not be used at all.

Leo

_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAut= h@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
=20
_______________________= ________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAut= h@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
--00000000000022e97f058e4822f7--