Re: [OAUTH-WG] Need for Extending OAuth with AuthN (was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt)

[Prateek Mishra <[e-mail]>]

I think the point is that OIDC also includes many other interactions 
that go well beyond an AuthN extension to OAuth.

We are trying to establish whether anyone other than the authors can 
figure out the minimal extension of OAuth that includes AuthN, and 
further, precisely which components are MTI.

To the extent that OIDC is a draft specification vs. "documentation", it 
would be helpful if that was made clearer.  The whole point of a 
*standard* is that these matters should be accessible to a broad 
audience, not just to a small set of expert insiders.

- prateek
> Rather than extending OAuth for something OpenID already does...  why 
> don't we get a simple informational example doc to show how to 
> implement the most basic OpenID service, which is the same 
> functionality on a standard that's already written?
>
> This is sounding more and mor elike a documentation problem.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Prateek Mishra <[e-mail]>
> *To:* Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* "[e-mail] WG" <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:38 PM
> *Subject:* [OAUTH-WG] Need for Extending OAuth with AuthN (was Re: 
> Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt)
>
> Nat -
>
> thanks for the detailed response. I did review the links you sent out 
> but it remained unclear to me which
> features are MTI and which are not. For example, there is nothing in 
> the Basic Client Profile that suggests
> that Section 2.3 is optional. I also could not find any definition for 
> " non-dynamic OpenID Connect Server".
>
> I dont think there is a need to duplicate portions of the draft 
> specification text in a new document. One solution
> that was used in SAML 2.0 was to define a conformance document which 
> described several different
> operational modes and explained how only a small set of features 
> needed to be implemented in certain modes.
>
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-conformance-2.0-os.pdf
>
> There are probably other smarter ways to achieve the same effect.
>
> Given this situation, I do think its a reasonable task for the OAuth 
> community to consider the need for
> a minimal extension to OAuth that accommodates authentication. The 
> community should be made aware that
> RFC 6749 is being misused for federated authentication, as explained 
> in  -
>
> http://www.independentid.com/2013/07/simple-authentication-for-oauth-2-what.html 
>
>
> and that there doesn't appear to be a simple solution that is 
> currently available. It would be great if it turned
> out that OpenID Connect offered such a solution but that isn't clear 
> to me.
>
> Thx,
> prateek
>
>>
>> Inline:
>>
>> 2013/7/31 Prateek Mishra <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[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]
>>>     <mailto:[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]
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>         Forgot reply all.
>>>>
>>>>         Phil
>>>>
>>>>         Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>>         *From:* Phil Hunt <[e-mail]
>>>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>         *Date:* 30 July, 2013 17:25:46 GMT+02:00
>>>>>         *To:* "Richer, Justin P." <[e-mail]
>>>>>         <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <http://www.independentid.com/>
>>>>>>>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         *From: *[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:[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]
>>>>>>>>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Phil Hunt
>>>>>>>>>>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[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 <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>         OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         OAuth mailing list
>>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         OAuth mailing list
>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>>     Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>>>     http://nat.sakimura.org/
>>>     @_nat_en
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     OAuth mailing list
>>>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>> @_nat_en
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>