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

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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=
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>>:
>
>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>