IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Authorization Grant Interval

Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com> Mon, 03 June 2019 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <janakama360@gmail.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 3C2171206E9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 JSr00-Ivxjd3 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (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 858531206DE for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id t5so11944608wmh.3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CTf9SpSFoNEE7EfqmX0CuTH+fIQL2EaGdSXqjofZINw=; b=ihTDAorNXxv8TGxVaEdmZzLdYq4OoYx+zHSBOC60qJKnJTiwoK16XPmF38NZM1N+ZE IWpWTMuLzYLxavJTzFWDUJZgibXXiUwpem4AErhz4A8QDFTKgQy+AIee43kZ1A8wQJEd 3o3J4+QhLM/ZQX/CvgaIfE4v9Iz1hDX+nyKmE7aG9C+ZHAdvDjrNyfwlTgJVywOco03B j7ieZ0BMZMlGCKV68KW1ibvYMI/vZqSeS54pcSWDRW8fB35iYotzKRl0wMQbpIfI1h5H rdQdCURBMM/+qse9mKDQlO6OTCQbfh9gzY40fJNvzREYxIOr34edY+hi7EHB+ZQngee5 vHIg==
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=CTf9SpSFoNEE7EfqmX0CuTH+fIQL2EaGdSXqjofZINw=; b=hYPV7eHLt10sovJ/BtUqT2WbpOYSAo5PfJ2kQnP14WEtKyuQjvli/D2RGOemr1/Nkx 0BiCVLcWO5R/ZEXLymjP1DQqWRLlYd65GbGIK0DqjUBNv83R0msKqOf17FGVCKjmidGu xJ9Id7X8zJmjmMApPaKzfsi2YiY0QZnJBqxxPSEb5sFWIxyhN6KotSe/9MIVbNTa4Ztc AolGFSCGBpPf6A4Tg5o4kcl8Bc0RcKUI14txYQeOC9CjnrmJX5+x5ovb5msQmz8CQzzA DAD60NK3rYEqqs7hQFKJ5Aj3Lz0AJoOdFCRB9vWDJTrkDjsGpwv0rynZ7r500epPqjqi 5TMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVcNca8TgAKRQ0HqpODloU/VxaoUN/dB1aPH0Hs1XIv1lWCFCwh F1b5D9UHhznVQIuu3k613YHuV0xKol5mnCSgRFE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzg7uk6lhHSHzOZ9P6YIJu4jCVrpXH2TOMEDA0S8y6JMKYMyLeA6Ocmbg0+vlZROP37QvTm/+rKXXUQ8CFrjEE=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:c282:: with SMTP id s124mr3184293wmf.141.1559582652048; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM7dPt0nS=+6oACUTc=sXnw3dpEqMB3ETq03iYnM1HsLv2_OQg@mail.gmail.com> <CE182107-09A2-49EB-9CBD-7354F051D2FA@authlete.com> <CAM7dPt2C=xnpXySpJnPW4vBGX-B4Nmnsthbxtvx+yPqMQXviKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAP42hA_RT3aT_a_ZkvUvs-wtYteebYhQVfhCUQc=r9b07jGQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAP42hA_RT3aT_a_ZkvUvs-wtYteebYhQVfhCUQc=r9b07jGQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 22:54:03 +0530
Message-ID: <CAM7dPt3K5=G3Rbtc9WU2ZdXqRJcM4BjQ0gDJyd7Y=TLms0LHhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
Cc: Joseph Heenan <joseph@authlete.com>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f928c3058a6ea1ff"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/ifZmYIJbXiYjcAYli26U9coTFcc>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Device Authorization Grant Interval
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: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 17:24:15 -0000

What William said was my understanding as well.

Best Regards,
Janak

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:35 PM William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com> wrote:

> The "slow_down" error response is defined for well-meaning clients. In my
> own client implementations, this has the effect of increasing the
> interval used
> <https://github.com/google/GTMAppAuth/blob/0a606bef46c3299609e9a6f478dd79df3c3f7dc0/Source/GTMTVAuthorizationService.m#L231-L234>
> .
>
> For a misbehaving client (one that doesn't honor "slow_down" and continues
> to poll too rapidly), a hard error as previously suggested seems
> appropriate.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:55 AM Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joseph,
>>
>> Thank you for the information, this what I was also thinking. It would be
>> nice if this can be defined in the specification itself, maybe as a
>> recommendation as there can be wrongly written client applications or even
>> if some party is trying to do a brute force attack.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Janak
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:40 PM Joseph Heenan <joseph@authlete.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Janak,
>>>
>>> Interestingly this came up when discussing the CIBA specification (which
>>> builds upon device authorization grant to some extent) recently:
>>> https://bitbucket.org/openid/mobile/issues/135/token-endpoint-response-when-client-polls
>>>
>>> The thought that group came up with is that returning ‘invalid_request’
>>> would be appropriate - ideally appropriate error_description to make it
>>> easy to understand what’s going on.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 21 May 2019, at 06:21, Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > In the OAuth2 Device Authorization Grant, what would be an appropriate
>>> response if the client does not respect the set polling interval and keeps
>>> on polling with a lower interval?
>>> >
>>> > Thank you,
>>> > Best Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Janak Amarasena
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OAuth mailing list
>>> > OAuth@ietf.org
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email