Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01.txt

[Justin Richer <[e-mail]>]

I'm leaning towards 1 because the client is more the "authorized 
presenter" of the token, not its audience.

  -- Justin

On 01/10/2013 11:52 AM, George Fletcher wrote:
> So in the default case I see two options for an AS that wants to 
> implement this endpoint...
>
> 1. Omit 'audience' from the response: The rationale here is that there 
> really isn't an explicit audience and what clients need to protect 
> against things like "confused deputy" is the client_id which is 
> already one of the response fields.
>
> 2. Make the 'audience' value the same as the 'client_id' value: The 
> rationale here is that the "audience" of the token is the entity for 
> which the token was minted which in the default OAuth2 case is the 
> client_id.
>
> Any thoughts as to which is the best option? For now I'm going with 
> option 2.
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
> On 1/10/13 9:18 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
>> In traditional OAuth, there really isn't a baked-in notion of 
>> 'audience' since the AS<->PR connection is completely out of scope. 
>> However, in practice, when you've got more than one PR per AS, you'll 
>> have some notion of 'audience'. It's definitely possible to handle 
>> this with 'scope', especially if you want the client to have a say in 
>> the matter. But since you could have your scopes and audiences 
>> defined independently (one scope across several audiences, one 
>> audience with many scopes, and any other combination thereof) I think 
>> it makes sense to at least define a place for the AS to express this 
>> back to the PR. JWT has the exact same claim for the exact same reason.
>>
>> As George points out below, this also really comes into play in the 
>> chaining case, where you've got one PR calling another PR and you 
>> need to keep things straight in a large backend.
>>
>> So while I agree it'd be better if OAuth had an 'audience' concept 
>> all the way through, I don't think it should be precluded from the 
>> introspection response just because it doesn't.
>>
>>  -- Justin
>>
>>
>> On 01/09/2013 04:47 PM, George Fletcher wrote:
>>> I had the same confusion about "what is 'audience' in OAuth?" today 
>>> working on a completely different project.
>>>
>>> I think for the default OAuth2 deployment, scopes take the place of 
>>> audience because the scopes identify the authorization grant(s) at 
>>> the resource servers affiliated with the Authorization Server. The 
>>> client can present the token to any resource server and if the 
>>> necessary authorization grant(s) are present, the protected resource 
>>> is returned. The client doesn't have to explicitly call out that it 
>>> is going to present the token to the 'mail service', it just needs 
>>> to ask for the 'readMail' scope.
>>>
>>> So, in regards to an AS implementation of the introspection 
>>> endpoint, what are the expectations for how the AS fills in the 
>>> 'audience' field. Should the AS not return the field if there is no 
>>> audience? Should the AS return "itself" as the audience? If a token 
>>> has scopes of 'readMail writeMail readBuddyList sendIM' then what is 
>>> the correct 'audience' of the token? Should it be an array of the 
>>> resource servers that depend on those scopes?
>>>
>>> I can see value in the chaining scenario of a client asking the AS 
>>> for a token that it will give to another party to present and 
>>> storing that intermediate party in the token. But for the default 
>>> OAuth2 case, should audience be omitted? or be the same value as 
>>> 'client_id'?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> George
>>>
>>> On 1/9/13 3:15 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt 
>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Justin,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 09.01.2013 um 20:35 schrieb Justin Richer <[e-mail] 
>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the review, answers inline:
>>>>>>> why is there a need for both scope and audience? I would assume 
>>>>>>> the scope of the authorization request is typically turned into 
>>>>>>> an audience of an access token.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can have an audience of a single server that has multiple 
>>>>>> scopes, or a single scope that's across multiple servers. Scope 
>>>>>> is an explicit construct in OAuth2, and while it is sometimes 
>>>>>> used for audience restriction purposes, they really are 
>>>>>> independent. Note that both of these are optional in the response 
>>>>>> -- if the AS has no notion of audience restriction in its stored 
>>>>>> token metadata, then it just doesn't return the "audience" field.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are making an interesting point here. To differentiate the 
>>>>> resource server and the permissions of a particular at this server 
>>>>> makes a lot of sense. BUT: the authorization request does not 
>>>>> allow the client to specify both in separate parameters. Instead 
>>>>> both must be folded into a single "scope" parameter. If I got your 
>>>>> example correctly, the scope of the request would be
>>>>>
>>>>> scope=myserver:read
>>>>>
>>>>> whereas the results of the introspection would be
>>>>>
>>>>> scope=read
>>>>> audience=myserver
>>>>>
>>>>> It's probably the different semantics of scope that confused me.
>>>>
>>>> No, sorry if I was unclear: scope is scope, no different semantics. 
>>>> In this example case, you'd ask for scope=myserver:read and get 
>>>> back scope=myserver:read. I'm not suggesting that these be split 
>>>> up. Since the AS in this case knows that there's an audience, so it 
>>>> can return audience=myserver as well. The fact that it knows this 
>>>> through the scope mechanism is entirely system-dependent.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the lack of a method for specifying audience does make 
>>>> returning this field a little odd for simple OAuth deployments, but 
>>>> since audience restriction is a big part of clustered and 
>>>> enterprise deployments (in my personal experience), then it's 
>>>> something very useful to have the server return.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Generally, wouldn't it be simpler (spec-wise) to just return a 
>>>>>>> JWT instead of inventing another set of JSON elements?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would be the utility in returning a JWT? The RS/client 
>>>>>> making the call isn't going to take these results and present 
>>>>>> them elsewhere, so I don't want to give the impression that it's 
>>>>>> a token. (This, incidentally, is one of the main problems I have 
>>>>>> with the Ping introspection approach, which uses the Token 
>>>>>> Endpoint and invents a "token type" as its return value.) Also, 
>>>>>> the resource server would have to parse the JWT instead of raw 
>>>>>> JSON, the latter of which is easier and far more common. Besides, 
>>>>>> I'd have to invent new claims for things like "valid" and 
>>>>>> "scopes" and what not, so I'd be extending JWT anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So while I think it's far preferable to use an actual JSON 
>>>>>> object, I'd be fine with re-using JWT claim names in the response 
>>>>>> if people prefer that. I tried to just use the expanded text 
>>>>>> since size constraints are not an issue outside of a JWT, so 
>>>>>> "issued_at" instead of "iat".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, note that this is *not* the same as the old OIDC CheckId 
>>>>>> endpoint which merely parsed and unwrapped the data inside the 
>>>>>> token itself. This mechanism works just as well with an 
>>>>>> unstructured token as input since the AS can store all of the 
>>>>>> token's metadata, like expiration, separately and use the token's 
>>>>>> value as a lookup key.
>>>>>
>>>>> I probably didn't describe well what I meant. I would suggest to 
>>>>> return a JWT claim set from the introspection endpoint. That way 
>>>>> one could use the same claims (e.g. iat instead of issued_at) for 
>>>>> structured and handle-based tokens. So the logic operating on the 
>>>>> token data could be the same.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, I follow you now. I'd be fine with re-using the JWT claim names 
>>>> and extending the namespace with the OAuth-specific parameters, 
>>>> like scope, that make sense here.
>>>>
>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Torsten.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 09.01.2013 um 20:10 schrieb Justin Richer <[e-mail] 
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Updated the introspection draft with feedback from the UMA WG, 
>>>>>>>> who have incorporated it into their latest revision of UMA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like this document to become a working group item.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>> Subject: 	New Version Notification for 
>>>>>>>> draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01.txt
>>>>>>>> Date: 	Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:48:47 -0800
>>>>>>>> From: 	<[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> To: 	<[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01.txt
>>>>>>>> has been successfully submitted by Justin Richer and posted to the
>>>>>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Filename:	 draft-richer-oauth-introspection
>>>>>>>> Revision:	 01
>>>>>>>> Title:		 OAuth Token Introspection
>>>>>>>> Creation date:	 2013-01-08
>>>>>>>> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
>>>>>>>> Number of pages: 6
>>>>>>>> URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01.txt
>>>>>>>> Status:http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection
>>>>>>>> Htmlized:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01
>>>>>>>> Diff:http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>>     This specification defines a method for a client or protected
>>>>>>>>     resource to query an OAuth authorization server to determine meta-
>>>>>>>>     information about an OAuth token.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                                                                                    
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>
>