Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT access tokens and the revocation endpoint

Hey Jim, regarding
> Every logout event should trigger token revocation
That isn’t necessarily the case. An access token represents the ability of a client to access a given resource; the fact that it requires an authentication transaction/session establishment to be issued to the client does not mean that the AT lifetime is tied to the lifetime of that session. Say that I allow LinkedIn to tweet on my behalf. Once I have done that, it doesn’t matter whether I stay logged in their web app or otherwise. Even if I log out of the session in which context I got my twitter AT, I can still post on LinkedIn from my native LinkedIn app and the corresponding post will show up on twitter as well.
Now, one might choose to *explicitly* tie tokens lifetime to originating sessions lifetime, see the discussion on the OpenID Connect group about a possible online_access scope for influencing RTs and Ats (in particular, in the context of SPAs) but that's additional semantic that isn’t defined today.

-----Original Message-----
From: OAuth <oauth-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jim Manico
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 5:17 PM
To: Nicolas Mora <nicolas@babelouest.org>
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT access tokens and the revocation endpoint

> In this model, considering that token revocations don't happen a lot...

Just a brief note, a secure piece of software makes the logout feature prominent. Every logout event should trigger token revocation.

I’m mentioning this because a lot of OAuth solutions in the mobile space literally ignore the logout event, such as Facebook’s mobile OAuth solution. 

- Jim

> On Oct 4, 2020, at 6:55 AM, Nicolas Mora <nicolas@babelouest.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
>> Le 20-10-04 à 11 h 27, Thomas Broyer a écrit :
>> 
>>    There might be some kind of pushed events between the AS and the RS when
>>    a JWT AT is revoked, to allow the RS not to introspect a JWT AT at all.
>>    Like this, the RS knows if a JWT AT has been revoked or not.
>> 
>> 
>> If there are some kind of pushed events between the AS and the RS, 
>> then it could push the revoked (and/or expired) opaque AT too, giving 
>> almost no advantage to JWT ATs.
>> 
> Not necessarily, let's say the AS informs the RS only of the revoked 
> ATs, when a RS checks an AT, it verifies the signature first, then the 
> claims, then checks if the AT has been revoked by checking its 
> internal list filled by the AS pushed events.
> 
> In this model, considering that token revocations don't happen a lot, 
> the ratio revoked AT/valid AT is very low, so the advantage of a JWT 
> is important, because it means not so much communication between the 
> AS and the RSs, and a very reliable AT.
> 
> But this means a communication mechanism that isn't standardized yet.
> 
> /Nicolas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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