Return-Path: 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 4289712003E for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 06:32:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pingidentity.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 BiUmwWC1pxD2 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 06:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (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 49848120058 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 06:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id f4so13435591ioh.6 for ; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 06:32:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=gmail; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iczYxVLZnRRlfiQtZYM5J+uFP5CeB50Exzo2Ez+MQl4=; b=P50aw+1+FETtmR45WYjWL1bqTyA3EXn06lKLrXkanMt2L1KTjxbbs4z6HeHwXqXZWt UBh8V46E53oulielmsSh8UEzgMQ+klkZHqWOYR3qmDomWXyuTKO+hqKjP0J0J1czVhlA MZwcFvcjKEkVEfEjtjakbC+nihltxV0JH85D0= 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=iczYxVLZnRRlfiQtZYM5J+uFP5CeB50Exzo2Ez+MQl4=; b=hlSBjHGdSnC5BIORIIWbGq4vJWqqRs9JNVya8iWR2GE/P6D/6jaH+VGMoqRDHColyV 1222euujZb5QH4CiosHy6A+OMmEZALyMlIYvzSO5pDS3RC+uQ47jeXmP5tvj39mboh9f lUCDkot1KCbV2wIM/FrU3Prbt5puk2Lgn5NEQxaiPv6FNCOvowmRGgnV88zDfyIJI9Fr JSZ+/vHrzbpa9PeVUxTk239fZrhSZet905ePFge4ZPLiZJK38Zc8iyVWz1nxj7C/6fg4 d2ruiC9wSadyinT2ASemWoq0LWqwCtI7x9CUYSYj+WQvvkF3c10YTcdCBEEje0vjBqxh SecQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWB86HZ/6c2SgDmUGHDd8DtCf+8pt/50SfQ/4ygIfMJ9iRAeHsE B3YbYbwARy32qu+O3uCPrZs1Uak/P4gNQ+t9cUwrIk1nMto9E8B/9vo/gSy2lDZZlm40o8I6zrz eW/5yyDHyQrH/Mt9r67g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynaK2EZyRfxphv5/Y9ncepaYifi9SKEMsBILyTfSJO+kH6DPh7/glT0pE/cVo0MbuDf6wHCYI2ZL4dMkRRk6o= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:d60a:: with SMTP id w10mr14547328iom.78.1562506361439; Sun, 07 Jul 2019 06:32:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <156238540273.21781.4146676340197499618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20190706184226.GA13047@kduck.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20190706184226.GA13047@kduck.mit.edu> From: Brian Campbell Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:32:15 -0400 Message-ID: To: Benjamin Kaduk Cc: The IESG , oauth , draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange@ietf.org, oauth-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a22e19058d175c4f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-17: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: OAUTH WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 13:32:47 -0000 --000000000000a22e19058d175c4f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:42 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > Not to my recollection. I'm honestly not even sure what an array would > mean > > for "may_act". Do you mean for "act"? > > Currently we can say that admin@example.com "may act" as user@example.com= . > But IIUC we don't have a way to say that either admin1@example.com or > admin2@example.com may do so. An array would let us indicate multiple > authorized parties. I'm reluctant to actually make such a change at this > point, though, since this is already deployed some places, right? > Okay, sorry, I'm a bit slow but I follow you now. Indeed this has been deployed in a number of places already. I'd honestly don't know if anyone is making use of this particular claim but changing from an object to array of objects would be a breaking change. And a breaking change is something I'd really like to avoid unless there's a very compelling reason to do so. And while your point here is taken, I don't think it rises to that level of compelling. I see two options at this point: 1) leave it as is 2) adjust the language around "may_act" such that it could also identify an eligible group - this would allow for it to indicate multiple authorized parties but just not by one by one name, which is maybe more desirable anyway What do you think? --=20 _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged= =20 material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,=20 distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.=C2=A0 If you h= ave=20 received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately= =20 by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your=20 computer. Thank you._ --000000000000a22e19058d175c4f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:42 PM Benjam= in Kaduk <kaduk@mit.e= du> wrote:
admin@example.com "may act" as user@example.com.
But IIUC we don't have a way to say that either admin1@example.com or
admin2@example.com<= /a> may do so.=C2=A0 An array would let us indicate multiple
authorized parties.=C2=A0 I'm reluctant to actually make such a change = at this
point, though, since this is already deployed some places, right?
=

Okay, sorry, I'm a bit slow but I foll= ow you now.=C2=A0

Indeed this has been deploy= ed in a number of places already. I'd honestly don't know if anyone= is making use of this particular claim but changing from an object to arra= y of objects would be a breaking change. And a breaking change is something= I'd really like to avoid unless there's a very compelling reason t= o do so.=C2=A0 And while your point here is taken, I don't think it ris= es to that level of compelling.

I see two options = at this point:
1) leave it as is
2) adjust the language= around=C2=A0 "may_act" such that it could also identify an eligi= ble group - this would allow for it to indicate multiple authorized parties= but just not by one by one name, which is maybe more desirable anyway
=

What do you think?

=

<= span style=3D"margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:= baseline;background:transparent;font-family:proxima-nova-zendesk,system-ui,= -apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ub= untu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue",Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:600"= >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidenti= al and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). A= ny review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited= .=C2=A0 If you have received this communication in error, please notify the= sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachmen= ts from your computer. Thank you. --000000000000a22e19058d175c4f--