Re: [OAUTH-WG] tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23

Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com> Thu, 08 March 2012 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <haibin.song@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C527521F8527; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:20:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wn2J0sneccck; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF2921F8525; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0J00N2ENTU3Q@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:20:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M0J006B6NTU3M@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:20:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHR02466; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:20:17 +0800
Received: from SZXEML427-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.35) by szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:20:11 +0800
Received: from SZXEML534-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.222]) by szxeml427-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.35]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:20:13 +0800
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:20:44 +0000
From: Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453AFCD4079@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.129]
To: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
Message-id: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F156E0D51@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: zh-CN
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: [OAUTH-WG] tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23
Thread-index: AczrxK1m0Cmrx5G1TqO2SHCpS5Hjof//wGMA//yqX4D/2ndaEP+0yFaA
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F156D8F4B@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4F3BB6B8.1030501@mitre.org> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F156D9D56@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453AFCD4079@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Cc: "draft-ietf-oauth-v2@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-oauth-v2@tools.ietf.org>, "tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org" <tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, "tsv-dir@ietf.org" <tsv-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:20:45 -0000

OK. I understand. Then I have no questions. 

Thank you for the answer.
-Haibin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Eran Hammer
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 8:02 AM
> To: Songhaibin; Justin Richer
> Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-v2@tools.ietf.org; tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org; tsv-dir@ietf.org;
> oauth@ietf.org; Martin Stiemerling
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Songhaibin [mailto:haibin.song@huawei.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:53 AM
> > To: Justin Richer
> > Cc: tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-oauth-v2@tools.ietf.org; Martin
> > Stiemerling; oauth@ietf.org; tsv-dir@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23
> >
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > Thank you for the clarification. See in line.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Justin Richer [mailto:jricher@mitre.org]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:44 PM
> > > To: Songhaibin
> > > Cc: tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-oauth-v2@tools.ietf.org; Martin
> > > Stiemerling; oauth@ietf.org; tsv-dir@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-23
> > >
> > > On 02/15/2012 04:33 AM, Songhaibin wrote:
> > > > I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
> > > > directorate's ongoing
> > > effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> > > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> > > document's authors for their information and to allow them to address
> > > any issues raised. The authors should consider this review together with
> > any other last-call comments they receive.
> > > Please always CC tsv-dir@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
> > > >
> > > > First, I should apologize for the delay in this review, I should
> > > > have finished it two
> > > days ago. I have some common security knowledge but not an expert.
> > > >
> > > > Summary
> > > >
> > > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
> > > > should be fixed
> > > before publication.
> > > >
> > > > General issues need discussion:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Section 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 discuss two authorization grant type:
> > > > resource owner
> > > password credentials, and client credentials. These two have the same
> > > flow and many in common, and they are significantly different than the
> > > authorization code grant type and implicit grant type described in
> > > previous sections. And in section 1.3.4, it also says " Client
> > > credentials are used as an authorization grant typically when the
> > > client is acting on its own behalf (the client is also the resource
> > > owner),...". Is it better to combine these two grant types as one "client
> > credentials" grant type where the client can be the resource owner?
> > >
> > > No, they are quite distinct -- It all comes down to what you're
> > > authenticating. The Resource Owner Password Credentials flow *also*
> > > includes client credentials which are distinct from the resource
> > > owner's own credentials. The client's credentials are going to be the
> > > same for a given client across many different users, while the
> > > Resource Owner's credentials are going to be different across
> > > different users, but the same across different clients (for the same
> > > resource owner). In most flows, the client's credentials identify just
> > > the client, and the resource owner is identified through some other
> > > means (a direct password, a redirected login to the authz endpoint).
> > > In the Client Credentials flow, the client's credentials are the only ones that
> > you have.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, in the Resource Owner Password Credentials flow, it adds client
> > credentials, but any client who was issued credentials from the authorization
> > server can pass. How much security does the client credential in this flow
> > add?
> 
> It can allow the server to enforce policies, but more importantly, client
> authentication is part of every access token request make to this endpoint as
> part of the overall architecture.
> 
> > > > 2. Two concepts confused me in section 2.4, I don't know if I am the
> > > > only person
> > > who is confusing here. One is user-agent-based application and another
> > > is native application, why are they executed on the device used by the
> > > resource owner? I think they can run on any device used by resource
> > > consumer instead of resource owner. Resource owner is only used to grant
> > access to resources.
> > >
> > > OAuth's main 3-legged pattern allows what's called "Alice-to-Alice
> > > sharing", in that the Client is consuming on behalf of the resource
> > > owner. In cases where you have an in-user-agent app or a native app,
> > > the end user (resource owner) is going to be the one running it, and
> > > the one authorizing it.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I understand that. But the document seems like resource owner is the
> > "only" one who can run the UA app or native app? Or I missed something?
> 
> It is the only one. Only the resource owner can grant access.
> 
> EH
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Haibin
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback, and I hope this can help clear up the intent
> > > of the working group here. If you can suggest language that will
> > > solidify these points further, it can help make sure this doesn't
> > > further confuse people.
> > >
> > >   -- Justin
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth