Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering

[Paul Madsen <[e-mail]>]

Agree that they are separate. For the use case I gave the fundamental requi

Sent from my iPhone

On 2012-03-15, at 9:22 AM, "Richer, Justin P." <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> 4) wrt revocation, we definitely see use cases  (enterprise employee is issued long lived refresh token for a mobile SaaS app, then gets fired and so enterprise needs to turn off the access) but can probably achieve the equivalent with a SCIM 'delete user' message
> 
> Token revocation and user deletion are completely separate issues -- there's no real overlap here. It's about closing the session management gap (for both access and refresh tokens) and it has nothing to do with deprovisioning a user in a system. In many cases, there might not even be a "user" that the token directly represents, or the client wouldn't know enough about them to make a delete user message. And that's a very good thing -- Would you really want to give every delegated client the ability to delete your account when it felt like it? Absolutely not - that level of power is completely counter to the whole point of delegated access. 
> 
> Plus, for what it's worth, it's pretty much finished already and we've implemented the endpoint already, too. 
> 
> 
> To answer Hannes's original question, I think the WG's priorities from the list ought to be, in rough order:
> 
> 1) Revocation (for reasons above)
> 2) Dynamic Registration (big need for this and several drafts already out there to start from)
> 3) JWT Bearer (it matches the profile for saml bearer and fits in the OAuth world well)
> 4) JWT, if no one else will take it (and it is basically done, and well deployed already)
> 5) Use cases (since it's informational and bound to cause some level of controversy, I wouldn't want to see this really detract from the real normative standards work, and don't think it should be counted against the total)
> 
> For other documents discussed, like XML encoding, SWD, UX, and things like that, other avenues *may* be a better fit and I'm happy with pursuing some of these myself. But with so much of the work on these and other documents already done, many of the same arguments for inclusion of the above five apply.
> 
>  -- Justin
> 
>> On 3/15/12 7:12 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>  
>>> Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing your draft writeup with us.
>>>  
>>> Could you submit the document as Internet Draft when the submission gates open again?
>>> The I-D submission tool will be reopened at 00h UTC, 2012-03-26.
>>>  
>>> From the current list of items what do you consider less important?
>>>  
>>> Ciao
>>> Hannes
>>>  
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Paul Madsen
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:35 PM
>>> To: Richer, Justin P.
>>> Cc: [e-mail] WG
>>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth WG Re-Chartering
>>>  
>>> +1 to defining RS-AS interactions. We've implemented such a 'token introspection' endpoint in our AS and I'm be happy to no longer need to explain to customers/partners why it's not part of the standard.
>>> 
>>> As input, an (incomplete) spec for our endpoint enclosed. (we modeled the verification as a new grant type, leveraging as much as possible the existing token endpoint API)
>>> 
>>> Wrt the 5 item limit
>>> 
>>> 1) is this an arbitrary #? if people sign up to work on more items, could it be extended?
>>> 2) the use cases document seems already well progressed (and informational). Need it count against the 5?
>>> 
>>> paul
>>> 
>>> On 3/14/12 5:53 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
>>> Methods of connecting the PR to the AS are something that several groups have invented outside of the OAuth WG, and I think we should try to pull some of this work together. OAuth2 gives us a logical separation of the concerns but not a way to knit them back together. 
>>>  
>>> Proposals for inclusion in the discussion include UMA's Step 3, OpenID Connect's CheckID, and several "token introspection" endpoints in various implementations.
>>>  
>>>  -- Justin
>>>  
>>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>>  
>>> So, here is a proposal:
>>>  
>>> -------
>>>  
>>> Web Authorization Protocol (oauth)
>>>  
>>> Description of Working Group
>>>  
>>> The Web Authorization (OAuth) protocol allows a user to grant
>>> a third-party Web site or application access to the user's protected
>>> resources, without necessarily revealing their long-term credentials,
>>> or even their identity. For example, a photo-sharing site that supports
>>> OAuth could allow its users to use a third-party printing Web site to
>>> print their private pictures, without allowing the printing site to
>>> gain full control of the user's account and without having the user 
>>> sharing his or her photo-sharing sites' long-term credential with the 
>>> printing site. 
>>>  
>>> The OAuth protocol suite encompasses
>>> * a procedure for allowing a client to discover a resource server, 
>>> * a protocol for obtaining authorization tokens from an authorization 
>>> server with the resource owner's consent, 
>>> * protocols for presenting these authorization tokens to protected 
>>> resources for access to a resource, and 
>>> * consequently for sharing data in a security and privacy respective way.
>>>  
>>> In April 2010 the OAuth 1.0 specification, documenting pre-IETF work,
>>> was published as an informational document (RFC 5849). With the 
>>> completion of OAuth 1.0 the working group started their work on OAuth 2.0
>>> to incorporate implementation experience with version 1.0, additional
>>> use cases, and various other security, readability, and interoperability
>>> improvements. An extensive security analysis was conducted and the result 
>>> is available as a stand-alone document offering guidance for audiences 
>>> beyond the community of protocol implementers.
>>>  
>>> The working group also developed security schemes for presenting authorization
>>> tokens to access a protected resource. This led to the publication of
>>> the bearer token as well as the message authentication code (MAC) access 
>>> authentication specification. 
>>>  
>>> OAuth 2.0 added the ability to trade a SAML assertion against an OAUTH token with 
>>> the SAML 2.0 bearer assertion profile.  This offers interworking with existing 
>>> identity management solutions, in particular SAML based deployments.
>>>  
>>> OAuth has enjoyed widespread adoption by the Internet application service provider 
>>> community. To build on this success we aim for nothing more than to make OAuth the 
>>> authorization framework of choice for any Internet protocol. Consequently, the 
>>> ongoing standardization effort within the OAuth working group is focused on 
>>> enhancing interoperability of OAuth deployments. While the core OAuth specification 
>>> truly is an important building block it relies on other specifications in order to 
>>> claim completeness. Luckily, these components already exist and have been deployed 
>>> on the Internet. Through the IETF standards process they will be improved in 
>>> quality and will undergo a rigorous review process. 
>>>  
>>> Goals and Milestones
>>>  
>>> [Editor's Note: Here are the completed items.] 
>>>  
>>> Done     Submit 'OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations' as a working group item
>>> Done     Submit 'HTTP Authentication: MAC Authentication' as a working group item
>>> Done     Submit 'The OAuth 2.0 Protocol: Bearer Tokens' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>> Done     Submit 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>>  
>>> [Editor's Note: Finishing existing work. Double-check the proposed dates - are they realistic?] 
>>>  
>>> Jun. 2012       Submit 'HTTP Authentication: MAC Authentication' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>> Apr. 2012       Submit 'SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion Profiles for OAuth 2.0' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>> Apr. 2012  Submit 'OAuth 2.0 Assertion Profile' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard 
>>> Apr. 2012  Submit 'An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard 
>>> May 2012    Submit 'OAuth 2.0 Threat Model and Security Considerations' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
>>>  
>>> [Editor's Note: New work for the group. 5 items maximum! ]
>>>  
>>> Aug. 2012    Submit 'Token Revocation' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>>  
>>> [Starting point for the work will be http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lodderstedt-oauth-revocation/]
>>>  
>>> Nov. 2012    Submit 'JSON Web Token (JWT)' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>>  
>>> [Starting point for the work will be http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-json-web-token]
>>>  
>>> Nov. 2012    Submit 'JSON Web Token (JWT) Bearer Token Profiles for OAuth 2.0' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>>  
>>> [Starting point for the work will be http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer]
>>>  
>>> Jan. 2013    Submit 'OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>>>  
>>> [Starting point for the work will be http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-dynreg] 
>>>  
>>> Sep. 2012    Submit 'OAuth Use Cases' to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC
>>>  
>>> [Starting point for the work will be http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zeltsan-oauth-use-cases] 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>