Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Flow: Alternative to Polling

[Torsten Lodderstedt <[e-mail]>]

It would be great to learn more about implementation experiences and 
have implementation considerations in this spec.

In the OpenID MODRNA working group, we are working on specs facing 
similar challenges and decided to offer both pull and push style 
communication (e.g. 
https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?Submit=Submit&format=ascii&mode=html&type=ascii&url=https://bitbucket.org/openid/mobile/raw/tip/draft-user-questioning-api.xml). 
If your experience suggests pull is totally sufficient and easier to 
implement (esp. for the client), we could also simplify our stuff.

best regards,
Torsten.

Am 24.10.2016 um 17:30 schrieb Simon Moffatt:
>
> I agree, simplicity is key here.
>
> From a practicality perspective (ForgeRock implemented the AS part of 
> the device flow in January), there were some steps to mitigate things 
> like potential excessive polling and DoS but they can be easily 
> overcome on the AS side of things), but as William says, polling is 
> simple and solves the use case.
>
> The option of running an HTTP stack on the device, is maybe overkill 
> for some deployments though, especially with lower powered devices and 
> the management overhead.
>
> Websocket style notifications are gaining popularity for other web 
> access management use cases like session destruction notifications and 
> session attribute changes so that seems a viable option.
>
>
> On 21/10/16 23:50, William Denniss wrote:
>> We've been operating with polling for a while and handle a decent 
>> amount of traffic (the YouTube TV app uses it), the polling gets the 
>> job done. The simplicity of the protocol definitely helps when used 
>> on constrained devices.
>>
>> I like the idea of adding HTTP/2 based long-poll as an optional 
>> enhancement, especially if we can define it in ways that don't alter 
>> the underlying protocol a whole lot.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Aaron Parecki <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Part of the beauty of the current device flow spec is that it's
>>     so simple to support. Keeping that simplicity is crucial
>>     especially for this, since this flow is used by a variety of
>>     devices that often do not have higher level stacks.
>>
>>     I would love to hear from someone who has experience with
>>     large-scale deployments of this to know whether polling is even a
>>     problem in the first place.
>>
>>     ----
>>     Aaron Parecki
>>     aaronparecki.com <http://aaronparecki.com/>
>>     @aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>
>>
>>     ----
>>     Aaron Parecki
>>     aaronparecki.com <http://aaronparecki.com>
>>     @aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>
>>
>>
>>     On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi all,
>>
>>         the device flow document outlines the case when an OAuth
>>         interaction
>>         gets "outsourced" to a separate device in order to allow user
>>         authentication and collecting the consent.
>>
>>         The exchange is described in Section 1 of
>>         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-03
>>         <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-03>.
>>
>>         Here is the step that was raised during the discussions:
>>
>>               (E) While the end-user authorizes (or denies) the
>>         client's request
>>               (D), the client repeatedly polls the authorization
>>         server to find
>>               out if the end-user completed the end-user
>>         authorization step.
>>               The client includes the verification code and its client
>>               identifier.
>>
>>         The question was whether we could come up with an alternative
>>         to polling
>>         since this step could potentially take some time. Hence, it
>>         would be
>>         better if the authorization server has a way to send a
>>         message to the
>>         client without polling. Of course, the polling frequency
>>         matters and how
>>         quickly one (e.g., user) wants to know about the successful
>>         authorization.
>>
>>         So, the first question is whether polling is considered as a
>>         problem in
>>         the first place.
>>
>>         If so, then the question is how this could be addressed and
>>         (from work
>>         in other areas) there are really only two approaches:
>>
>>         1) We make use of some protocol that keeps the connection
>>         open and allow
>>         asynchronous communication. HTTP/2 and Websockets come to mind.
>>
>>         2) The client can be addressed through some push notification
>>         mechanism,
>>         such as by running an HTTP server on the device that can then
>>         be used by
>>         the authorization server.
>>
>>         Any views about this topic?
>>
>>         Ciao
>>         Hannes
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         OAuth mailing list
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     OAuth mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> -- 
> ForgeRock <http://www.forgerock.com/> 	*Simon Moffatt*
> OpenAM - Technical Product Manager  |  ForgeRock
> *tel* [phone]  | *e* [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *skype* simon.moffatt  | *web* www.forgerock.com 
> <http://www.forgerock.com/>  | *twitter* @simonmoffatt
>
>
>
> Summits <https://summits.forgerock.com/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth