Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item
Mark Dobrinic <mdobrinic@cozmanova.com> Tue, 29 July 2014 09:46 UTC
Return-Path: <mdobrinic@cozmanova.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D5B1A02F9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QYOrewuIqKvZ for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02AF21A0311 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from speedym.lan (ip5651156e.adsl-surfen.hetnet.nl [86.81.21.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr13.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6T9kcUN031561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:46:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mdobrinic@cozmanova.com)
Message-ID: <53D76D7E.5090905@cozmanova.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:46:38 +0200
From: Mark Dobrinic <mdobrinic@cozmanova.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Justin Richer <jricher@MIT.EDU>, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
References: <53D6895F.4050104@gmx.net> <CAEayHEM+pqDqv1qx=Z-qhNuYM-s2cV0z=sQb_FAJaGwcLpq_rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20A36D56-D581-4EDE-9DEA-D3F9C48AD20B@oracle.com> <53D6ED5A.10500@mit.edu> <33F1EE39-2BDF-4F3D-B4DD-4AB9848BC4BF@oracle.com> <53D6F7A5.3070209@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <53D6F7A5.3070209@mit.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/botSF4QVhApOAsJiY1EEVymXMzQ
Cc: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:46:51 -0000
Just some way I could look at this discussion: One way to separate an AS and an RS is specified by UMA, so for UMA it is required to have a standardized Token Introspection feature. If there are no other uses for separating AS/RS, then UMA would be the place for standardizing Token Introspection. On the other hand, if there might be other uses for a standardized Token Introspection, then it would make the most sense that it would be made a feature of the set of OAuth specifications. Personally, I've been surprised to find that the main OAuth spec does not specify a standard way to return a token's info. Cheers! Mark On 29/07/14 03:23, Justin Richer wrote: > I think this perspective has a lot to do with your idea of OAuth's > deployment model. You're right in that many people bundle the RS and the > AS very tightly, but that's not always case, nor is it desirable. We're > increasingly seeing cases where a group (often an enterprise) has their > own AS on premises and wants to stand up an RS from a vendor. Without a > means to connect the RS to the AS in a standard way, you're stuck with > using whatever AS the RS vendor wants to sell you along side their RS. > But with the right mechanisms (like JWT and token introspection), you're > able to connect the RS from one vendor to the AS from another vendor, > and it works together. I'm not sure what's unclear, but this is the very > definition of interoperability. > > This is to say nothing of simply being able to locate the RS remotely > from the AS within a particular security domain and still use > artifact-style tokens (ie, tokens that don't encode everything within > them). > > I have already had to deal directly with several cases of RS'es and > AS'es from different vendors doing effectively the token introspection > thing in different ways, in protecting vanilla OAuth within a single > security domain. They were doing it slightly differently for no > compelling reason other than having to invent the "I have a token and > need to look it up" mechanism independently. When both sides were able > to speak the same token introspection protocol (based on the individual > draft I'd submitted), then we could actually make things work. And none > of this was running UMA, which also makes use of this. > > I really don't see JWT as any different. To borrow your statement: In > OAuth, a site may never implement JWT nor may it do it in the way that > JWT describes. Why would that be a problem? (Hint: it isn't, they're > free to do whatever token they want. Same with introspection, it's a > tool that you can use if it makes sense for you to use it. So far a > whole bunch of people have said it makes sense.) > > -- Justin > > On 7/28/2014 8:59 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >> That doesn’t explain the need for inter-operability. What you’ve >> described is what will be common practice. >> >> It’s a great open source technique, but that’s not a standard. >> >> JWT is much different. JWT is a foundational specification that >> describes the construction and parsing of JSON based tokens. There is >> inter-op with token formats that build on top and there is inter-op >> between every communicating party. >> >> In OAuth, a site may never implement token introspection nor may it do >> it the way you describe. Why would that be a problem? Why should the >> group spend time on something where there may be no inter-op need. >> >> Now that said, if you are in the UMA community. Inter-op is quite >> foundational. It is very very important. But then maybe the spec >> should be defined within UMA? >> >> Phil >> >> @independentid >> www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com> >> phil.hunt@oracle.com <mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com> >> >> >> >> On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Justin Richer <jricher@MIT.EDU >> <mailto:jricher@MIT.EDU>> wrote: >> >>> It's analogous to JWT in many ways: when you've got the AS and the RS >>> separated somehow (different box, different domain, even different >>> software vendor) and you need to communicate a set of information >>> about the approval delegation from the AS (who has the context to >>> know about it) through to the RS (who needs to know about it to make >>> the authorization call). JWT gives us an interoperable way to do this >>> by passing values inside the token itself, introspection gives a way >>> to pass the values by reference via the token as an artifact. The two >>> are complementary, and there are even cases where you'd want to >>> deploy them together. >>> >>> -- Justin >>> >>> On 7/28/2014 8:11 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>> Could we have some discussion on the interop cases? >>>> >>>> Is it driven by scenarios where AS and resource are separate >>>> domains? Or may this be only of interest to specific protocols like UMA? >>>> >>>> From a technique principle, the draft is important and sound. I am >>>> just not there yet on the reasons for an interoperable standard. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 17:00, Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:t.broyer@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes. This spec is of special interest to the platform we're >>>>> building for http://www.oasis-eu.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Hannes Tschofenig >>>>> <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net <mailto:hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> during the IETF #90 OAuth WG meeting, there was strong consensus in >>>>> adopting the "OAuth Token Introspection" >>>>> (draft-richer-oauth-introspection-06.txt) specification as an >>>>> OAuth WG >>>>> work item. >>>>> >>>>> We would now like to verify the outcome of this call for >>>>> adoption on the >>>>> OAuth WG mailing list. Here is the link to the document: >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection/ >>>>> >>>>> If you did not hum at the IETF 90 OAuth WG meeting, and have an >>>>> opinion >>>>> as to the suitability of adopting this document as a WG work item, >>>>> please send mail to the OAuth WG list indicating your opinion >>>>> (Yes/No). >>>>> >>>>> The confirmation call for adoption will last until August 10, >>>>> 2014. If >>>>> you have issues/edits/comments on the document, please send these >>>>> comments along to the list in your response to this Call for >>>>> Adoption. >>>>> >>>>> Ciao >>>>> Hannes & Derek >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thomas Broyer >>>>> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto: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 <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
- [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OA… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Bill Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Mark Dobrinic
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Paul Madsen
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Bill Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Thomas Broyer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of… Brian Campbell