Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type

[Eran Hammer-Lahav <[e-mail]>]

This has been going on for far too long.

There is a well-established gap between the two tokens and those who support them and we are NEVER going to reach consensus. Instead we have a war of attrition were each side is just keeping at it hoping the other side will give up. The only compromise we were able to reach in 2 years is to keep the v2 specification token agnostic. If we are now going to violate that for the perceived notion of interoperability, we should at least do it with due process.

Stephen - In previous discussion, my understanding was that you were opposed to publishing OAuth 2.0 without MAC because that would make 2.0 a less secure option than 1.0. While, as you stated, this thread is not about security but about interoperability, the two are at odds here and you can only have one. If the specification picked a winner by making only one required, and if that one is Bearer, I see no point whatsoever in spending any more of my time on MAC. It would be DOA.

The WG is clearly opposed to making MAC required, but that is not the only question to ask. The question for the group is also, do you even want MAC? Are you planning on using it? And will you use it alongside Bearer or exclusively?

If there is sufficient WG support for MAC, making Bearer required alone violates that spirit because it will make MAC another specification no one cares about and we don't need more of those. If there is no sufficient support, let's just drop it as a WG item and let it resurface later if at all.

As for the "market has decided" argument - I only want to warn those who use it that it is a double-edge-sword. The same people who now use that argument are also the members of this group responsible for some of the new astronaut architecture features proposed in the rechartering discussion. If you intend to make this your winning argument, the WG must then apply the same rational to your other proposals.

EHL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 6:44 AM
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
> 
> 
> Whatever. If the entire WG want to get excited by the difference between
> MAY do mac and not mentioning it then fine.
> 
> Personally, I'd be more interested in getting done rather than nailing that
> final nail into any coffin;-)
> 
> S
> 
> On 12/04/2011 02:21 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> > The core spec should be completely silent on MAC, as it is not ready for
> prime time.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of Stephen Farrell
> > Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 6:20 AM
> > To: Paul Madsen
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type
> >
> >
> > FWIW, if Barry's suggested text was amended to say "MUST do bearer,
> MAY do mac" I'd still be ok with that.
> >
> > Much as I'd like if the mac scheme were more popular, my comment on -22
> was interop and not really security related.
> >
> > S
> >
> > On 12/04/2011 01:15 PM, Paul Madsen wrote:
> >> Commercial OAuth authorization servers are neither 'toolkits' nor
> >> 'purpose built code' - not used to build OAuth clients/servers but
> >> yet required to support more variety in deployments than a single
> >> purpose built server.
> >>
> >> But, that variety is driven by customer demand, and none of ours
> >> (yet?) have demanded MAC. If and when that demand comes, we will
> add support.
> >>
> >> To stipulate MAC as MTI would in no way reflect what the market wants.
> >> And 'interop' nobody wants is not meaningful interop.
> >>
> >> paul
> >>
> >> On 12/3/11 4:37 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >>> Stephen says:
> >>>> On 12/02/2011 03:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >>>>> Maybe what would work best is some text that suggests what I say
> >>>>> above: that toolkits intended for use in implementing OAuth
> >>>>> services in general... implement [X and/or Y], and that code
> >>>>> written for a specific environment implement what makes sense for
> that environment.
> >>>>> It seems to me that to require any particular implementation in
> >>>>> the latter case is arbitrary and counter-productive, and doesn't
> >>>>> help anything interoperate. Whereas general-purpose toolkits that
> >>>>> implement everything DO help interop.
> >>>> That'd work just fine for me.
> >>> OK, so here's what I suggest... I propose adding a new section 7.2, thus:
> >>>
> >>> -----------------------------------
> >>> 7.2 Access Token Implementation Considerations
> >>>
> >>> Access token types have to be mutually understood among the
> >>> authorization server, the resource server, and the client -- the
> >>> access token issues the token, the resource server validates it, and
> >>> the client is required to understand the type, as noted in section
> >>> 7.1, above. Because of that, interoperability of program code
> >>> developed separately depends upon the token types that are supported
> >>> in the code.
> >>>
> >>> Toolkits that are intended for general use (for building other
> >>> clients and/or servers), therefore, SHOULD implement as many token
> >>> types as practical, to ensure that programs developed with those
> >>> toolkits are able to use the token types they need. In particular,
> >>> all general-use toolkits MUST implement bearer tokens [...ref...]
> >>> and MAC tokens [...ref...].
> >>>
> >>> Purpose-built code, built without such toolkits, has somewhat more
> >>> flexibility, as its developers know the specific environment they're
> >>> developing for. There's clearly little point to including code to
> >>> support a particular token type when it's known in advance that the
> >>> type in question will never be used in the intended deployment.
> >>> Developers of purpose-built code are encouraged to consider future
> >>> extensions and to plan ahead for changes in circumstances, and might
> >>> still want to include support for multiple token types. That said,
> >>> the choice of token-type support for such purpose-built code is left
> >>> to the developers and their specific requirements.
> >>> -----------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> I think that expresses a reasonable compromise that might actually
> >>> be followed and might actually do some good. Comments? Can we go
> >>> with this and close this issue? (And, sorry, I've been a Bad Chair,
> >>> and haven't put this in the tracker.)
> >>>
> >>> Barry
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth