Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt

As mentioned during the Chicago meeting the "invalid_target" error code
that was added in -07 was intended to give the AS a standard way to reject
request with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is
unwilling or unable to process based on policy or whatever criteria . It
was intended as a compromise, of sorts, to allow for the multiple
resources/audiences in the request but provide an easy out for the AS of
saying it can't be supported based on whatever implementation or security
or policy it has.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are cases where tokens are supposed to be consumed at multiple
> places and the `aud` needed to capture them. That's why `aud` is a
> multi-valued field.
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:35 AM Torsten Lodderstedt <
> torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
>
>> May I ask you to explain this reason?
>>
>> Am 27.03.2017 um 08:48 schrieb Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>:
>>
>> For the same reason that the “aud” claim is multi-valued in JWTs, the
>> audience needs to stay multi-valued in Token Exchange.  Ditto for resources.
>>
>>
>>
>>                                                        Thanks,
>>
>>                                                        -- Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org <oauth-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Brian Campbell
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 8:45 AM
>> *To:* Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
>> *Cc:* oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-
>> exchange-07.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the review and question, Torsten.
>>
>> The desire to support multiple audience/resource values in the request
>> came up during a review and discussion among the authors of the document
>> when preparing the -03 draft. As I recall, it was said that both Salesforce
>> and Microsoft had use-cases for it. I incorporated support for it into the
>> draft acting in the role of editor.
>>
>> From an individual perspective, I tend to agree with you that allowing
>> for multiple audiences/resources adds a lot of complexity that's like not
>> needed in many (or most) cases. And I would personally be open to making
>> audience and resource mutual exclusive and single valued. A question for
>> the WG I suppose.
>>
>> The "invalid_target" error code that was added in -07 was intended to
>> give the AS a standard way to deal with the complexity and reject request
>> with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is
>> unwilling or unable to process. It was intended as a compromise, of sorts,
>> to allow for the multiples but provide an easy out of saying it can't be
>> supported based on whatever implementation or policy of the AS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <
>> torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks for the clarification around resource, audience and scope.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are my comments on the draft:
>>
>>
>>
>> In section 2.1 it states: „Multiple "resource" parameters may be used to
>> indicate
>>
>>       that the issued token is intended to be used at the multiple
>>
>>       resources listed.“
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you please explain the rational in more detail? I don’t understand
>> why there is a need to ask for access tokens, which are good for multiple
>> resources at once. This is a request type more or less exclusively used in
>> server to server scenarios, right? So the only reason I can think of is
>> call reduction.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other side, this feature increases the AS's complexity, e.g. its
>> policy may prohibit to issue tokens for multiple resources in general or
>> the particular set the client is asking for. How shall the AS handles such
>> cases?
>>
>>
>>
>> And it is getting even more complicated given there could also be
>> multiple audience values and the client could mix them:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Multiple "audience" parameters
>>
>>       may be used to indicate that the issued token is intended to be
>>
>>       used at the multiple audiences listed.  The "audience" and
>>
>>       "resource" parameters may be used together to indicate multiple
>>
>>       target services with a mix of logical names and physical
>>
>>       locations.“
>>
>>
>>
>> And in the end the client may add some scope values to the „meal“, which
>> brings us to
>>
>>
>>
>> „Effectively, the requested access rights of the
>>
>>    token are the cartesian product of all the scopes at all the target
>>
>>    services."
>>
>>
>>
>> I personally would suggest to drop support for multiple audience and
>> resource parameters and make audience and resource mutual exclusive. I
>> think this is sufficient and much easier to implement.
>>
>>
>>
>> kind regards,
>>
>> Torsten.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 11.01.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com
>> >:
>>
>>
>>
>> Draft -07 of "OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange" has been published. The primary
>> change in -07 is the addition of a description of the relationship between
>> audience/resource/scope, which was a request or comment that came up during
>> the f2f meeting in Seoul.
>>
>> Excerpted from the Document History:
>>
>>    -07
>>
>>    o  Fixed typo (desecration -> discretion).
>>    o  Added an explanation of the relationship between scope, audience
>>       and resource in the request and added an "invalid_target" error
>>       code enabling the AS to tell the client that the requested
>>       audiences/resources were too broad.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>> Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:00 PM
>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
>>
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol of the IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange
>>         Authors         : Michael B. Jones
>>                           Anthony Nadalin
>>                           Brian Campbell
>>                           John Bradley
>>                           Chuck Mortimore
>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
>>         Pages           : 31
>>         Date            : 2017-01-11
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    This specification defines a protocol for an HTTP- and JSON- based
>>    Security Token Service (STS) by defining how to request and obtain
>>    security tokens from OAuth 2.0 authorization servers, including
>>    security tokens employing impersonation and delegation.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
> --
>
> Nat Sakimura
>
> Chairman of the Board, OpenID Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>