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]>]

+1

I am trying to figure out how we can streamline the documentations.
Now that we are done with the implementer's draft vote that diff is not
that important any more as technical content is determined and IPR is
locked in, now is the time to do a major surgery to fix the documentation
clutter that is caused by its history.

There are several proposals on the table right now in the AB/Connect WG at
OIDF.

My proposal at the moment is to reorganize the doc into:


   - OpenID Connect Core
   - OpenID Connect Discovery
   - OpenID Connect Dynamic Registration
   - OpenID Connect Advanced Claims Extension
   - OpenID Connect Advanced Client Authentication Methods Extension
   - OpenID Connect Self-Issued Provider Extension
   - OpenID Connect JSON Based Request Extension

Currently, I am experimenting with whether keeping the different flows in
the Core makes sense or it is better to split them out.

Here is the link to the Core draft I am experimenting with:
http://bit.ly/19yHvJB
XML and HTML versions are in the same repository as well.

Your input will be most welcome.

Nat


2013/8/1 Richer, Justin P. <[e-mail]>

>  +1
>
>  On Jul 31, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Bill Mills <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>   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 at tools.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 [e-mail]://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