Re: [OAUTH-WG] PAR: pushed requests must become JWTs

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Thu, 09 January 2020 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
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 9F9FF120890 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:56:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lodderstedt.net
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 dLNuqR8zFrIQ for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:56:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF529120885 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 00:56:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id p17so1892374wma.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:56:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lodderstedt.net; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=UmtMIK/WgW7MEWFIVmJmjuuI7eM2dNl1ZQg/etrXeDY=; b=uLZh94bxCBQjhzo6mWELmNALPwKqiE6+HBKdbw5ZofnZQ0ij7hM7YZ5IzjbnYVpsNH 9c4RffUeaSRdbsN2SPvsPxHPp7kuuucriyVHCYSteqjk5ygMW7SZ4ZlhiSrtzJQzXMjs obZUUcdOFLyCtoy/0YlomiQ/tC7cxocodt9wU4mO4m9EdwKuq+OvzELttMlY/xFwRdsu EYnvf9mM86fP2PQsy0bIdh9m1vxzi+bkPYCYmcUtLmOPw7XftoxeE+q1/d+p/4rYJrqi PQgJqiWAd7fheWrn21nMTiJBQ+Iihk8wG1UFQy7z0pyrVCfTyOCJqioykvYPfT/idXUp cVtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=UmtMIK/WgW7MEWFIVmJmjuuI7eM2dNl1ZQg/etrXeDY=; b=AT2aIk1IW/exbIUkAEWMFYX/I/f89NYAIo3DsW2oKcfMKWgqJQPJnjlbEfUgcJptvs jnnbgWFWGI4o1fITacYXE9gB32NQq3s+zbYc6U9E3BhMDaewUEP+HboM3sP/v+ZbkaZ0 nAeDO05JYJqpBh3H0HmwCA6RunrlIPVo/4b5YzRrz1M4VmXVS+cLdOJxaCrJjowhZriC 6/4AYrptURJhSD7eNnIMPxAdMXgnUiVZuWjrO+RUhuhYjj4IajsrVQUmpO1jYJwxDeEb 457f2OUDXr/mJSlx0YYFfWP6qNBoRvXIIqZ2NXpg2ktMVFHtndRF2bkqaybP+4DgKqZe mLQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVOUORymBDdoSDt/XZ4Cn3cj/qvyYHoGK7eN2eyQnPW/mjvgqVz GAr9cfDOMElprCkUH2zMCueMfw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwIwFWvxkhT9QLNH7jSDtUaQlOfjKpHneTmGpeOihy2rTRNfL1UE3xRIT73OZZZ7J+5ZpSmUw==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9cce:: with SMTP id f197mr3244891wme.133.1578560176447; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:56:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.30.2.24] ([213.151.95.77]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t1sm2107452wma.43.2020.01.09.00.56.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-A14B76CB-5EC1-4838-896E-CBDB885E6904; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:56:14 +0100
Message-Id: <72A27E43-72C6-44D0-8D95-07FBF8CE332F@lodderstedt.net>
References: <8D1DD3BF-97B5-416A-B914-6867FD3553B0@amazon.com>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8D1DD3BF-97B5-416A-B914-6867FD3553B0@amazon.com>
To: "Richard Backman, Annabelle" <richanna=40amazon.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C54)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/faN2SmBQE8mGJRu5yJnECp_2_0Q>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] PAR: pushed requests must become JWTs
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 09 Jan 2020 08:56:21 -0000

I would assume given the status of JAR, we don’t want to change it. And as I said, this difference does not impact interoperability from client perspective.

> Am 09.01.2020 um 00:58 schrieb Richard Backman, Annabelle <richanna=40amazon.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>:
> 
> 
> It would be more appropriate to add the text to JAR rather than PAR. It doesn't seem right for PAR to retcon rules in JAR. Moving the text to JAR also highlights the weirdness of giving PAR special treatment.
>  
> What if we changed this sentence in Section 5.2 of JAR:
> The contents of the resource referenced by the URI MUST be a Request
> Object.
>  
> To:
> The contents of the resource referenced by the URI MUST be a Request
> Object, unless the URI was provided to the client by the Authorization
> Server.
>  
> This would allow for use cases such as an AS that provides pre-defined request URIs, or vends request URIs via a client management console, or bakes them into their client apps.
>  
> –
> Annabelle Richard Backman
> AWS Identity
>  
> On 1/8/20, 2:50 PM, "Torsten Lodderstedt" <torsten=40lodderstedt.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>  
>     Hi,
>     
>     you are right, PAR does not require the AS to represent the request as a JWT-based request object. The URI is used as internal reference only. That why the draft states
>     
>     "There is no need to make the
>           authorization request data available to other parties via this
>           URI.”
>    
>     This difference matters from an AS implementation perspective, it doesn't matter from a client's (interop) perspective.
>    
>     We may add a statement to PAR saying that request_uris issued by the PAR mechanism (MAY) deviate from the JAR definition.
>     
>     best regards,
>     Torsten. 
>     
>     > On 8. Jan 2020, at 23:42, Richard Backman, Annabelle <richanna=40amazon.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi all,
>     > 
>     > The current drafts of PAR (-00) and JAR (-20) require that the AS transform all pushed requests into JWTs. This requirement arises from the following:
>     >         • PAR uses the request_uri parameter defined in JAR to communicate the pushed request to the authorization endpoint.
>     >         • According to JAR, the resource referenced by request_uri MUST be a Request Object. (Section 5.2)
>     >         • Request Object is defined to be a JWT containing all the authorization request parameters. (Section 2.1)
>     > 
>     > There is no need for this requirement to support interoperability, as this is internal to the AS. It is also inconsistent with the rest of JAR, which avoids attempting to define the internal communications between the two AS endpoints. Worse, this restriction makes it harder for the authorization endpoint to leverage validation and other work performed at the PAR endpoint, as the state or outcome of that work must be forced into the JWT format (or retrieved via a subsequent service call or database lookup).
>     > 
>     > –
>     > Annabelle Richard Backman
>     > AWS Identity
>     > 
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > OAuth mailing list
>     > OAuth@ietf.org
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>    
>