Re: [OAUTH-WG] MTLS endpoints & discovery (was something else)

[Dominick Baier <[e-mail]>]

+1

———
Dominick

On 21. February 2019 at 09:35:35, Dave Tonge ([e-mail])
wrote:

+1 for mtls_endpoints optional metadata

Dave Tonge



On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 00:09, John Bradley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I agree.
>
> If someone really wants separate meta-data nothing stops them from having
> a separate AS with its own meta-data.
>
> John B.
> On 2/20/2019 7:04 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
>
> +1 for defining an optional mtls endpoints section
>
> I first leaned towards a second metadata file, mainly due to the potential
> token endpoint authentication method issue. But adding a secondary metadata
> configuration just for this purpose seems a bit over engineered and would
> take a lot of normative language to get it right. Just as an example: does
> the second configuration overload or replace the primary one? On the other
> hand, any client using looking for mtls based token endpoint authentication
> methods must be aware of the potential mtls endpoints section. So I think
> their is no real issue.
>
> Am 20.02.2019 um 17:59 schrieb Filip Skokan <[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>>:
>
> +1, great summary
>
> Odesláno z iPhonu
>
> 20. 2. 2019 v 16:10, Brian Campbell <
> bcampbell=[e-mail]..org
> <bcampbell=[e-mail]>>:
>
> The objective is to allow the AS to provide MTLS negotiating endpoints on
> a different host and/or port so that any non-desirable side effects of
> requesting client certificates during the TLS handshake can be avoided for
> 'regular' clients that are not doing any MTLS.
>
> In all likelihood, I'd expect that any pair of MTLS and regular endpoints
> have the same application logic behind them. And that just the TLS setup
> that differs to accommodate the aforementioned objective. That means that
> they'd support the same client authentication methods but the MTLS endpoint
> would just be set up so as to get MTLS to work. When first considering it,
> that seemed a bit overreaching for the spec to come out and say and more of
> a deployment thing for the AS. But maybe being more prescriptive would
> reduce some of the professed problematic ambiguity. As mentioned in a
> previous message, referring to the mtls endpoints as aliases might be
> useful in indicating that they are the same endpoint that is just known and
> accessed differently based on the context of use.
>
> I'll grant that some of the wording in RFC 8414 can be awkward with
> respect to this kind of extension. Calling it a violation is a bit over the
> top though. And as much as we might try to write specs that are the final
> word, there's the realities of how usage and understanding unfold in
> practice. As one example, there's some discussion of the treatment of some
> of the metadata in this  section of a blog post about a different spec
> being developed
> https://medium.com/@darutk/ciba-a-new-authentication-authorization-technology-in-2019-explained-by-an-implementer-d1e0ac1311b4#8a00..
> Maybe that's in violation of RFC 8414 or RFC 7591. Or maybe it's being
> pragmatic in the given circumstances. I suppose opinions will differ.
>
> It turns out that writing these specifications is kinda hard. Even when
> people share the same objective (and that's often not even the case),
> opinions can differ about what actually constitutes simplicity. It seems
> that's where we are now.
>
> My stance as an individual is that the mtls_endpoints (or
> mtls_endpoint_aliases) approach is reasonable and pragmatic and the most
> straightforward and simple of the options put forth (i.e.. vs a metadata
> parameter linking to or well-known locations to completely separate
> metadata documents). As an editor, I acknowledge that there's been
> disagreement about it while also noting again that the dissenting voices
> come from a vocal minority of a few individuals.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:55 PM Richard Backman, Annabelle <richanna=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Neil’s example demonstrates how the mtls_endpoints approach leads to
>> confusion. Consider the following metadata fragment:
>>
>>
>>
>> {
>>
>>   “token_endpoint”: “https://as.example..com/token
>> <https://as.example.com/token>”,
>>
>> “token_endpoint_auth_methods_supported”: [ “client_secret_basic”,
>> “tls_client_auth” ],
>>
>> “mtls_endpoints”: {
>>
>>   “token_endpoint”: “https://as.example.com/mtls/token”
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> Which of these statements about endpoints on https://as.example.com/ are
>> true?
>>
>>    1. The /token endpoint only supports client_secret_basic, and
>>    /mtls/token only supports tls_client_auth.
>>    2. The /token endpoint supports both methods, and /mtls/token only
>>    supports tls_client_auth.
>>    3. Both /token and /mtls/token support both methods.
>>
>>
>>
>> All of these could be reasonable interpretations of this metadata. When
>> properties mean different things in different contexts, ambiguity abounds.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Annabelle Richard Backman
>>
>> AWS Identity
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited..
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>


--

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth