Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Introspection)
Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com> Sat, 16 January 2016 16:02 UTC
Return-Path: <vladimir@connect2id.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C760C1A8A45 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:02:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 yCJ8Onhx8JMj for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa06-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C8DA1A8A42 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 08:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.112] ([77.77.164.50]) by p3plsmtpa06-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with id 6g2l1s00B15ZTut01g2mcD; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 09:02:47 -0700
To: oauth@ietf.org
References: <CA+k3eCSpWFwyvk=XHP4b_zxzu-zrMYsS-axF6csO90-ahmkueQ@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR03MB4423033D5604E9E36B20C23F5CA0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5CA9073D-BBF7-48BD-BEC5-1F626E8C3818@mit.edu> <8EB68572-DA59-482D-A660-FA6D9848AAD2@oracle.com> <ade5692aa1afa2d9d79b8ac7a55bf150@lodderstedt.net> <5698CB3D.1030306@gmail.com> <69B0E23E-818A-4FE4-81A0-A8106EB6C312@ve7jtb.com> <5698F885.3030009@gmail.com>
From: Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com>
Organization: Connect2id Ltd.
Message-ID: <569A69A5.7020006@connect2id.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:02:45 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5698F885.3030009@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms090207040008090505070309"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/JeHc2qhJ929V_IzeMne4w5N_0To>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Introspection)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:02:48 -0000
On 15/01/16 15:47, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > Hi John > > Thanks, looks like it was a last minute change because Introduction > does not explain why would clients want to use the introspection > endpoint to effectively 'unwrap' the opaque token representations. > > I have another question. How to report the expiry time in cases when > the tokens do not expire ? I'm aware of some deployments where access > tokens are only manually deleted and otherwise would not expire. > > Perhaps not reporting the expiry time is equivalent to the token never > expiring ? Or may be reporting 0 or -1 works ? The core OAuth 2.0 spec seems to imply the former: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-5.1 Using a zero or negative integer may not be a good idea, as clients may just take the value as it is and add it to the current system time, concluding that the token has expired :) Cheers, Vladimir > > Thanks, Sergey > On 15/01/16 13:32, John Bradley wrote: >> Some people wanted the client to be able to use introspection. >> >> The ability to pass a refresh token is a legacy of that. A RS >> would never have a refresh token unless it is acting as a client. >> That is correct. >> >> John B. >> >>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 5:34 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I'm reviewing RFC 7622 as we are going ahead with implementing it. >>> I have a question: >>> >>> 1. Token Hint in the introspection request. >>> The spec mentions 'refresh_token' as one of the possible values. But >>> a protected resource does not see a refresh token (ever ?), it is >>> Access Token service which does. >>> When would a protected resource use a 'refresh_token' hint when >>> requesting an introspection response ? >>> >>> Thanks, Sergey >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -- Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- [OAUTH-WG] Mix-Up About The Mix-Up Mitigation Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mix-Up About The Mix-Up Mitigation Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mix-Up About The Mix-Up Mitigation Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mix-Up About The Mix-Up Mitigation Phil Hunt (IDM)
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mix-Up About The Mix-Up Mitigation torsten
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mix-Up About The Mix-Up Mitigation Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mix-Up About The Mix-Up Mitigation Bill Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mix-Up About The Mix-Up Mitigation Antonio Sanso
- [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Introsp… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… Buhake Sindi
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… Buhake Sindi
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question about RFC 7622 (Token Int… Sergey Beryozkin
- [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-audie… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mix-Up About The Mix-Up Mitigation Roland Hedberg
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Status of draft-tschofenig-oauth-a… Sergey Beryozkin