Re: [OAUTH-WG] A question on token revocation.

Sure that can done.. Do you see any issues having discuss that under the
same spec.. The purpose of both are the same. Only the actor differs.

Thanks & regards,
-Prabath

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Todd W Lainhart <lainhart@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> > If you would like to see the RO-initiated token revocation go through
> (not grant revocation, mind you -- that's related, but different), then I
> would suggest that you start specifying exactly how that works.
>
> +1
>
>  *
>
>
> Todd Lainhart
> Rational software
> IBM Corporation
> 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-1250**
> 1-978-899-4705
> 2-276-4705 (T/L)
> lainhart@us.ibm.com*
>
>
>
>
> From:        Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
> To:        Prabath Siriwardena <prabath@wso2.com>,
> Cc:        "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
> Date:        02/06/2013 10:21 AM
> Subject:        Re: [OAUTH-WG] A question on token revocation.
> Sent by:        oauth-bounces@ietf.org
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> On 02/06/2013 10:13 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Justin Richer <*jricher@mitre.org*<jricher@mitre.org>>
> wrote:
> These are generally handled through a user interface where the RO is
> authenticated directly to the AS, and there's not much need for a
> "protocol" here, in practice.
>
> Why do you think leaving access token revocation by RO to a proprietary
> API is a good practice ? IMO this an essential requirement in API security.
> I think it makes more sense in the same way that having a "proprietary"
> UI/API for managing the user consent makes sense: unless you're doing a
> fully dynamic end-to-end system like UMA, then there's not much value in
> trying to squeeze disparate systems into the same mold, since they won't be
> talking to each other anyway.
>
> And since you refer to it as an "API", what will the RO be using to call
> this API? Is there a token management client that's separate from the OAuth
> client?
>
>
> IMHO token revocation done my RO is more practical than token revocation
> done by the Client.
> They're both valid but require different kinds of protocols and
> considerations. This token revocation draft is meant to solve one problem,
> and that doesn't mean it can or should solve other seemingly related
> problems.
>
> If you would like to see the RO-initiated token revocation go through (not
> grant revocation, mind you -- that's related, but different), then I would
> suggest that you start specifying exactly how that works. I predict it will
> be problematic in practice, though, as the RO often doesn't actually have
> direct access to the token itself.
>
>
> There are larger applications, like UMA, that have client and PR
> provisioning that would allow for this to be managed somewhat
> programmatically, but even in that case you're still generally doing token
> revocation by a "client" in some fashion. In UMA, though, several different
> pieces can play the role of a "client" at different parts of the process.
>
> Revoking a scope is a whole different mess. Generally, you'd want to just
> revoke an existing token and make a new authorization grant with lower
> access if you don't want that client getting that scope anymore. If you
> just want to downscope for a single transaction, you can already do that
> with either the refresh token or token chaining approaches, depending on
> where in the process you are. The latter of these are both client-focused,
> though, and the RO doesn't have a direct hand in it at this point.
>
> Why do you think it a mess. If you revoke the entire token then Client
> needs to go through the complete OAuth flow - and also needs to get the
> user consent. If RO can  downgrade the scope, then we restrict API access
> by the client at RS end and its transparent to the client.
>
>
> Downgrading the scope of tokens in the wild is hardly transparent to the
> client (stuff that it expects to work will suddenly start to fail, meaning
> that most clients will throw out the token and try to get a new one), and
> in a distributed system you've got to propagate that change to the RS. If
> you bake the scopes into the token itself (which many do) then you actually
> *can't* downgrade a single token, anyway.
>
> -- Justin
>
> Thanks & regards,
> -Prabath
>
>
>
> -- Justin
>
>
> On 02/06/2013 04:35 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote:
> I am sorry if this was already discussed in this list..
>
> Looking at [1] it only talks about revoking the access token from the
> client.
>
> How about the resource owner..?
>
> There can be cases where resource owner needs to revoke an authorized
> access token from a given client. Or revoke an scope..
>
> How are we going to address these requirements..? Thoughts appreciated...
>
> [1] *http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-04*<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-04>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Prabath
>
> Mobile : *+94 71 809 6732* <%2B94%2071%20809%206732>
> *
> **http://blog.facilelogin.com* <http://blog.facilelogin.com/>*
> **http://RampartFAQ.com* <http://rampartfaq.com/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> *OAuth@ietf.org* <OAuth@ietf.org>
> *https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Prabath
>
> Mobile : +94 71 809 6732
> *
> **http://blog.facilelogin.com* <http://blog.facilelogin.com/>*
> **http://RampartFAQ.com* <http://rampartfaq.com/>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Prabath

Mobile : +94 71 809 6732

http://blog.facilelogin.com
http://RampartFAQ.com