Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Thu, 11 August 2011 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dick.hardt@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 2A43121F8B1C for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AKOkVtE0QnU3 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF5521F8B02 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye1 with SMTP id 1so588998iye.27 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=ECCC6I5RaDL5C0hGqAwF73ZXO8acoCd+E0C6TC36Glk=; b=DC6btfGIcHEzLxMS4xBU4mHDmiNaqSInT9VOmISbhAzz9Pv7mcMjrV4AUwqLN7I1qL vXvqqdFju2BMV7Z0i/BO9Sy70d6gHpeCkvW/xVA/E5zmkzm/kzOCkr+k9ogHaKK6S69G yNtJ/qxLFNSNMFcu1oLQanTWcY8L0IvvBRdJE=
Received: by 10.231.200.147 with SMTP id ew19mr114140ibb.79.1313094324508; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.47] (c-24-5-69-173.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.5.69.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q4sm1730490ibb.49.2011.08.11.13.25.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-10--220328272"
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723B89DBF@SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:25:20 -0700
Message-Id: <8ED87B37-CF6B-46F6-8D3F-C4FC3147AB2B@gmail.com>
References: <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723B89BDE@SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA697C47.17C73%eran@hueniverse.com> <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723B89DBF@SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens
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, 11 Aug 2011 20:24:51 -0000

If it was, no one told me.

On 2011-08-11, at 12:41 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:

> Anonymity was certainly part of the design for WRAP
>  
> From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:35 PM
> To: Anthony Nadalin; Dick Hardt
> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens
>  
> Section 1.5 already covers refresh tokens. There are many use cases for refresh tokens. They are basically a protocol feature used to make scalability and security more flexible. Anonymity was never part of their design, and by the nature of this protocol, is more in the domain of the resource server (based on what information it exposes via its API). In fact, your email if the first such suggestion of anonymity.
>  
> EHL
>  
> From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:15:28 -0700
> To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
> Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens
>  
> Many reasons, but none are explained in the specification
>  
> From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:51 AM
> To: Anthony Nadalin
> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens
>  
> My recollection of refresh tokens was for security and revocation.
>  
> security: By having a short lived access token, a compromised access token would limit the time an attacker would have access
>  
> revocation: if the access token is self contained, authorization can be revoked by not issuing new access tokens. A resource does not need to query the authorization server to see if the access token is valid.This simplifies access token validation and makes it easier to scale and support multiple authorization servers.  There is a window of time when an access token is valid, but authorization is revoked. 
>  
>  
>  
> On 2011-08-11, at 10:40 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the specification is there explanation for refresh tokens, The reason that the Refresh token was introduced was for anonymity. The scenario is that a client asks the user for access. The user wants to grant the access but not tell the client the user's identity. By issuing the refresh token as an 'identifier' for the user (as well as other context data like the resource) it's possible now to let the client get access without revealing anything about the user. Recommend that the above explanation be included so developers understand why the refresh tokens are there.
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>