Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering

Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com> Thu, 15 March 2012 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.madsen@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 E0A1121F8686 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:35:07 -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 x3plmTVr169P for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C362E21F8674 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iazz13 with SMTP id z13so4302528iaz.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=Djedg3UZh/Ffm913vGU8x8Ky5kp5C+qSe7zZRoAgjI8=; b=pXB68MZJQDrNpC9R0XfZ2d51jPeNUxFyhiXw3j+aeakcdqlU5czzK76R0gEFOP19V4 mZ4n2kunsQlPE4eHsjLlAutytURYIOIzYQmgvTYzT3pKWvaJZKWN+kdhOiHEaokS4mXM mAzPy5M2Gl0fYsjgD1I3V3nE+KcmKmHA1MVLzwTBXGvBmTCvN2IuzZvfHp+pWsSYjR0l ggNfLF2ghJA2/u16kZcg+nOd6qilP6xjOznBggP3L66eqSKlBtlCXMRl8l1myaUZQjo/ 9F7U2cU41tAsG5XNDR2almX0NFsXSkZKY7em1rGVdcED2ywJRn+sWs26NNyrbBpU3O57 2dQA==
Received: by 10.50.76.163 with SMTP id l3mr16174975igw.10.1331807705264; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.22] (bas1-northbay04-2925117588.dsl.bell.ca. [174.89.192.148]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id uz5sm1164255igc.10.2012.03.15.03.35.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F61C5D6.40106@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:35:02 -0400
From: Paul Madsen <paul.madsen@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Richer, Justin P." <jricher@mitre.org>
References: <B327D847-B059-41D7-A468-8B8A5DB8BFCE@gmx.net> <2560E47E-655A-4048-AE5D-70EFF171D816@mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <2560E47E-655A-4048-AE5D-70EFF171D816@mitre.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040103080902030206030208"
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering
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, 15 Mar 2012 10:35:08 -0000

+1 to defining RS-AS interactions. We've implemented such a 'token 
introspection' endpoint in our AS and I'm be happy to no longer need to 
explain to customers/partners why it's not part of the standard.

As input, an (incomplete) spec for our endpoint enclosed. (we modeled 
the verification as a new grant type, leveraging as much as possible the 
existing token endpoint API)

Wrt the 5 item limit

1) is this an arbitrary #? if people sign up to work on more items, 
could it be extended?
2) the use cases document seems already well progressed (and 
informational). Need it count against the 5?

paul

On 3/14/12 5:53 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
> Methods of connecting the PR to the AS are something that several groups have invented outside of the OAuth WG, and I think we should try to pull some of this work together. OAuth2 gives us a logical separation of the concerns but not a way to knit them back together.
>
> Proposals for inclusion in the discussion include UMA's Step 3, OpenID Connect's CheckID, and several "token introspection" endpoints in various implementations.
>
>   -- Justin
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
>> So, here is a proposal:
>>
>> -------
>>
>> Web Authorization Protocol (oauth)
>>
>> Description of Working Group
>>
>> The Web Authorization (OAuth) protocol allows a user to grant
>> a third-party Web site or application access to the user's protected
>> resources, without necessarily revealing their long-term credentials,
>> or even their identity. For example, a photo-sharing site that supports
>> OAuth could allow its users to use a third-party printing Web site to
>> print their private pictures, without allowing the printing site to
>> gain full control of the user's account and without having the user
>> sharing his or her photo-sharing sites' long-term credential with the
>> printing site.
>>
>> The OAuth protocol suite encompasses
>> * a procedure for allowing a client to discover a resource server,
>> * a protocol for obtaining authorization tokens from an authorization
>> server with the resource owner's consent,
>> * protocols for presenting these authorization tokens to protected
>> resources for access to a resource, and
>> * consequently for sharing data in a security and privacy respective way.
>>
>> In April 2010 the OAuth 1.0 specification, documenting pre-IETF work,
>> was published as an informational document (RFC 5849). With the
>> completion of OAuth 1.0 the working group started their work on OAuth 2.0
>> to incorporate implementation experience with version 1.0, additional
>> use cases, and various other security, readability, and interoperability
>> improvements. An extensive security analysis was conducted and the result
>> is available as a stand-alone document offering guidance for audiences
>> beyond the community of protocol implementers.
>>
>> The working group also developed security schemes for presenting authorization
>> tokens to access a protected resource. This led to the publication of
>> the bearer token as well as the message authentication code (MAC) access
>> authentication specification.
>>
>> OAuth 2.0 added the ability to trade a SAML assertion against an OAUTH token with
>> the SAML 2.0 bearer assertion profile.  This offers interworking with existing
>> identity management solutions, in particular SAML based deployments.
>>
>> OAuth has enjoyed widespread adoption by the Internet application service provider
>> community. To build on this success we aim for nothing more than to make OAuth the
>> authorization framework of choice for any Internet protocol. Consequently, the
>> ongoing standardization effort within the OAuth working group is focused on
>> enhancing interoperability of OAuth deployments. While the core OAuth specification
>> truly is an important building block it relies on other specifications in order to
>> claim completeness. Luckily, these components already exist and have been deployed
>> on the Internet. Through the IETF standards process they will be improved in
>> quality and will undergo a rigorous review process.
>>
>> Goals and Milestones
>>
>> [Editor's Note: Here are the completed items.]
>>
>> Done 	Submit 'OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations' as a working group item
>> Done 	Submit 'HTTP Authentication: MAC Authentication' as a working group item
>> Done  	Submit 'The OAuth 2.0 Protocol: Bearer Tokens' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>> Done 	Submit 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> [Editor's Note: Finishing existing work. Double-check the proposed dates - are they realistic?]
>>
>> Jun. 2012 	Submit 'HTTP Authentication: MAC Authentication' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>> Apr. 2012 	Submit 'SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion Profiles for OAuth 2.0' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>> Apr. 2012  Submit 'OAuth 2.0 Assertion Profile' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>> Apr. 2012  Submit 'An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>> May 2012    Submit 'OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
>>
>> [Editor's Note: New work for the group. 5 items maximum! ]
>>
>> Aug. 2012    Submit 'Token Revocation' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> [Starting point for the work will be http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lodderstedt-oauth-revocation/]
>>
>> Nov. 2012    Submit 'JSON Web Token (JWT)' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> [Starting point for the work will be http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-json-web-token]
>>
>> Nov. 2012    Submit 'JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for OAuth 2.0' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> [Starting point for the work will be http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer]
>>
>> Jan. 2013    Submit 'OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> [Starting point for the work will be http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-dynreg]
>>
>> Sep. 2012    Submit 'OAuth Use Cases' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
>>
>> [Starting point for the work will be http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zeltsan-oauth-use-cases]
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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