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

[Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]>]

It is not a circular reference.
They are layered.
Profile referencing an extension sepc, which references a framework spec is
perfectly fine.
In fact, it should be that way.

It is just that the middle section in this case was worked out at an
outside forum.
Suppose it was worked in at OAuth WG and it was called OAuth Authentication
Extension.
And let us call what Phil is proposing as OAuth Authentication Extension
Basic Profile.

Then would it be a problem for the Basic Profile to reference the Authn
Extension, which in turn refences the RFC6749? Do we call it circular?

Of course not.

In this case, it is only that the "OAuth Authentication Extension" is
called "OpenID Connect".




2013/8/2 Bill Mills <[e-mail]>

> Circular references are not my favorite.
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]>
> *To:* Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* "[e-mail] WG" <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 1, 2013 9:34 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Need for Extending OAuth with AuthN (was Re:
> Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt)
>
> Not necessarily. Why would it be inappropriate?
>
> I call it NIH syndrome.
> Respecting the work which is done outside is a good thing.
> Just taking the content and taking a credit for it is a bad practice.
>
> Forking is also bad.
>
>
>
> 2013/8/2 Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>
>
> OpenId specs can depend on oAuth. Having OAuth depend on OpenId is not
> appropriate here.
>
> Phil
>
> On 2013-08-01, at 18:07, Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Like Bill says, it can just be a profile of OpenID Connect.
> IETF specs already references OpenID Foundation specs.
> It should not be a problem.
> I do not think we want to folk.
>
>
> 2013/8/1 Anthony Nadalin <[e-mail]>
>
>  I believe it beneficial to have a common format and common values, and 1
> way to handle the format and values. I believe that having this in oauth is
> beneficial, I believe that it would also be beneficial for OpenID if this
> were in oauth. There are cases for signed and unsigned formats. ****
> ** **
>  *From:* Richer, Justin P. [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:15 AM
> *To:* Nat Sakimura
> *Cc:* Anthony Nadalin; Bill Mills; Prateek Mishra; [e-mail] WG
>
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Need for Extending OAuth with AuthN (was Re:
> Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt)****
>  ** **
> Also, it's (optionally) a token in the proposed document we're discussing
> (§2.4.1), which means there are two ways to parse the same information.
> OIDC uses JWTs for everything, signed and unsigned. This means that OIDC is
> actually simpler from an implementation perspective, wouldn't you say?
> Instead of having two parsers, you have one to cover both cases.  ****
>  ** **
>  (And given your tendency to throw signed assertions at every problem, I
> would have thought that you'd prefer this anyway.) ****
>  ** **
>   -- Justin****
>  ** **
>  On Aug 1, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]>****
>   wrote:****
>
>
> ****
>
>  Yes, it is a Token. ****
>  No, it does not have to be signed. ****
>  ** **
>  As to be a token or not to be a token question, it has been discussed in
> the WG before, and if I remember correctly,  Microsoft argued for token
> saying that it is just base64 decoding and I lost there.  ****
>  Nat****
>
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 14:24, Anthony Nadalin <[e-mail]> wrote:**
> **
>
> You can’t do this, first openid uses a token and second it’s signed, third
> there is no specification to just return a authentication JSON structure**
> **
>  ****
>  *From:* Richer, Justin P. [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 1, 2013 5:15 AM
> *To:* Anthony Nadalin
> *Cc:* Bill Mills; Prateek Mishra; Nat Sakimura; [e-mail] WG
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Need for Extending OAuth with AuthN (was Re:
> Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt)****
>    ****
>  Tony, you can already return the authn result from the token request (we
> discussed this specifically in May as I recall). That's what the "idtoken"
> and "code idtoken" responses are for in OpenID Connect. The proposed draft
> is nearly a duplicate of the core functionality of OIDC. ****
>   ****
>    -- Justin****
>    ****
>   On Aug 1, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Anthony Nadalin <[e-mail]>****
>   wrote:****
>  ** **
>
>  The proposal does not duplicate what OpenID does, there is clear benefit
> for returning an authentication result in the token request result. This is
> being proposed as optional JSON structure.****
>    ****
>    *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
> Behalf Of *Bill Mills
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:50 PM
> *To:* Prateek Mishra; Nat Sakimura
> *Cc:* [e-mail] WG
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Need for Extending OAuth with AuthN (was Re:
> Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt)****
>     ****
>    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]>****
>
>  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]>****
>
>  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]> wrote:****
>
>
> ****
>
>   Forgot reply all.
>
> Phil****
>
> Begin forwarded message:****
>
>  *From:* Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>
> *Date:* 30 July, 2013 17:25:46 GMT+02:00
> *To:* "Richer, Justin P." <[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]> 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]>****
>    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]> 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]> 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****
>   [e-mail]****
>    ****
>
>
> ****
>     ****
>   Begin forwarded message:****
>
>
> ****
>
>  *From:*[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]>, Phil Hunt <[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 attools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat****
>
>    ****
>    _______________________________________________
> 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 list
> [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]****
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth****
>
>    ****
>
>
>
> ****
>    ****
>   --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)****
>   Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en****
>
>   ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> ****
>   _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [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]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en