Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) vs OIDC request object

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Wed, 11 December 2019 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 3735D120112 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:01:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ve7jtb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 0m4AuVeImNas for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (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 64BF2120074 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id d16so23914272wre.10 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:01:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ve7jtb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=paP3WAStEgIkCLk5AkISIyMbGx1EvRkjm8LL66a8VUg=; b=dfnr8qmKRMWVtetTHlKzEJV8KPXF1smc05u59zeNTDU3SX8KW5d+GdkjqBieuukJKV hoO0AOwrNWjCxnAGeP1THFW4SUmOya8T1jvU9PjmiQK3JaKev9AFNMvFSqoLyJs7L4dy t9MQotw7AnesblAYXUf/5smP/HORXsKI3wDvFX/YxnC/k0CR89Xy0nNfwm/5rwjnbADy ek3DcESe0nrU467CGhStWYun56MMdmaWIbEzZ/6CeWyhLCS7SEjHNqGk++R3koa4vgO9 o/IuhuC7ooY6AylKrS1PDxa/3BOIng5xH5imR6lkgg5pUHeTJpBoknsKcRTV8pPSSik4 1NVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=paP3WAStEgIkCLk5AkISIyMbGx1EvRkjm8LL66a8VUg=; b=ntVGCJL324zQLjp3oNJiNJIN0F4h+mw5jEO3PTyqScOr2YXgUhHwX2nq6mkc7CzcUs tRLZYrJbrRjm7Ko58Je/Bf/Pf8ii2jo4TdXMnX8OcXN20BFUtNeb1MFI8OWWZdOJIEF3 qhzKnv+s/HktvGAuCOVhqQuvivypwG1sOje1eUrI7/COhJEDIAmvFzIMEUzx/FQTa4Tw P+OeKh9bPK4QwdF29IFnMtgpRvj+Oh/rQFlm+Ttdq0+uBEsAUnQXJn4nN+de9UyCwH+9 MH3Byss8oLnyhJTnJZN86mqlqaPjXyAkbjKE73iouTQWAbAneQy6fg84T7E0kTrCXCI7 nFbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXSfYkbomMkocSKhlJNeevJqKlXv1xQhd9K5GBwF5uvMChr61U8 7zfoszxN6tK05trm1PNSAjON7zWLnLp40OLD5+Usxg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyAVh9aHpALYQtQ/cdN3UcUAeO3az6cyVsQy0DLboNyAYgscFEOh1ZHMhjdgRIe3hhhPbqIdANXbS3D3wHyYeo=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f58a:: with SMTP id f10mr3877398wro.105.1576069301523; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 05:01:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALAqi_-Ku6Hh3DQDXGR+83Q8jofMzVBcW=7GUnFFzsoG+Ka_1g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCRRW9oLfdmBXsccc_BVd-Ne8qOR5A4HftpSMkMt2JZLRg@mail.gmail.com> <CALAqi_9s+jXDwfb-HK+sguijR6=R6cPgJMwXhSkU52YQcEkX2A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCQZdX_DTDzcVaDJ=xaKSa0msjJh2UQvA+ZvhTeEBkTDkw@mail.gmail.com> <CABzCy2BVoutsLiwTDxpOKxOOtiNv59-TKAq=V9498m4OT=79+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABzCy2BVoutsLiwTDxpOKxOOtiNv59-TKAq=V9498m4OT=79+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 10:01:28 -0300
Message-ID: <CAANoGhJnHnrN2aMtgpyTs02bA8v7d5a_M5PgSVcUx1xxHo4CmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Campbell <bcampbell=40pingidentity.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>, Nat Sakimura <nat.sakimura@oidf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dbf46c05996d3a15"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/gHzu610iee9D5knWe_84wrKulrE>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) vs OIDC request object
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: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 13:01:48 -0000

I also slightly prefer the merge approach.

There are plusses and minuses to both.

Changing again now that it is past ISEG review and backing out a Discuss
will add another three to six months at this point, if we can get them to
agree to the change.

John B.

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 11:29 PM Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> wrote:

> Correct. The WG supported the precedence approach and even merge just like
> OIDC as it is very useful from the implementation point of view and helps
> with a bunch of deployment patter.
>
> The push back came in from the Ben Campbell’s DISCUSS.
> See
>
> https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-jwsreq/issues/70/bc-the-current-text-actually-specifies-the
>
> I am willing to go either way as long as people agree. My slight
> preference is to the original approach.
>
> Best,
>
> Nat Sakimura
>
> 2019年8月29日(木) 6:56 Brian Campbell <bcampbell=
> 40pingidentity..com@dmarc.ietf.org <40pingidentity.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>g>>:
>
>> FWIW, as best I can remember the change in question came as I result of directorate/IESG
>> review rather than a WG decision/discussion. Which is likely why you can't
>> find the "why" anywhere in the mailing list archive.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:23 PM Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well it kind of blows, doesn't it? I wasn't able to find the "why"
>>> anywhere in the mailing list archive around the time this was changed.
>>>
>>> My take on satisfying both worlds looks like this
>>>
>>> - allow just JAR - no other params when possible.
>>>     (which btw isn't possible to do with request_uri when enforcing
>>> client based uri whitelist and the jwsreq 5.2.2 shows as much)
>>> - enforce the "dupe behaviours" defined in OIDC (if response_type or
>>> client_id is in request object it must either be missing or the same in
>>> regular request).
>>> - allows merging request object and regular parameters with request
>>> object taking precedence since it is a very useful feature when having
>>> pre-signed request object that's not one time use and clients using it wish
>>> to vary state/nonce per-request.
>>>
>>> I wish the group reconsidered making this breaking change from OIDC's
>>> take on request objects - allow combination of parameters from the request
>>> object with ones from regular parameters (if not present in request object).
>>>
>>> S pozdravem,
>>> *Filip Skokan*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:02, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> Filip, for better or worse, I believe your assessment of the situation is
>>>> correct. I know of one AS that didn't choose which of the two to follow but
>>>> rather implemented a bit of a hybrid where it basically ignores everything
>>>> outside of the request object per JAR but also checks for and enforces the
>>>> presence and value of the few regular parameters (client_id, response_type)
>>>> that OIDC mandates.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:47 AM Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> in an earlier thread I've posed the following question that might have
>>>>> gotten missed, this might have consequences for the existing
>>>>> implementations of Request Objects in OIDC implementations - its making
>>>>> pure JAR requests incompatible with OIDC Core implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>> draft 14 of jwsreq (JAR) introduced this language
>>>>>
>>>>> The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object
>>>>>> duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward
>>>>>> compatibility etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *However, the authorization server supporting thisspecification MUST
>>>>>> only use the parameters included in the requestobject. *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Server MUST only use the parameters in the Request Object even if the
>>>>>> same parameter is provided in the query parameter.  The Authorization
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object
>>>>>> duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward
>>>>>> compatibility etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *However, the authorization server supporting thisspecification MUST
>>>>>> only use the parameters included in the requestobject. *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nat, John, everyone - *does this mean a JAR compliant AS ignores
>>>>> everything outside of the request object while OIDC Request Object one
>>>>> merges the two with the ones in the request object being used over ones
>>>>> that are sent in clear?* The OIDC language also includes sections
>>>>> which make sure that some required arguments are still passed outside of
>>>>> the request object with the same value to make sure the request is "valid"
>>>>> OAuth 2.0 request (client_id, response_type), something which an example in
>>>>> the JAR spec does not do. Not having this language means that existing
>>>>> authorization request pipelines can't simply be extended with e.g. a
>>>>> middleware, they need to branch their codepaths.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is an AS required to choose which of the two it follows?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for clarifying this in advance. I think if either the
>>>>> behaviour is the same as in OIDC or different this should be called out in
>>>>> the language to avoid confusion, especially since this already exists in
>>>>> OIDC and likely isn't going to be read in isolation, especially because the
>>>>> Request Object is even called out to be already in place in OIDC in the JAR
>>>>> draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> *Filip*
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
>>>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
>>>> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
>>>> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
>>>> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
>>>> your computer. Thank you.*
>>>
>>>
>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
>> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited..
>> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
>> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
>> your computer. Thank you.*_______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>