IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> Thu, 11 August 2011 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tonynad@microsoft.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 4E28711E808A for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ScnxRFYkkB87 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailc.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7235321F8B42 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:59:21 -0700
Received: from TX2EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (157.54.51.114) by mail.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:59:21 -0700
Received: from mail3-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.237) by TX2EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (10.9.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:59:20 +0000
Received: from mail3-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail3-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E86CC056A for <oauth@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:59:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -26
X-BigFish: PS-26(zz9371K936eKc85fh98dKzz1202h1082kzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:207.46.4.139; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:SKI; H:SN2PRD0302HT015.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received-SPF: softfail (mail3-tx2: transitioning domain of microsoft.com does not designate 207.46.4.139 as permitted sender) client-ip=207.46.4.139; envelope-from=tonynad@microsoft.com; helo=SN2PRD0302HT015.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail3-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail3-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 131309272566603_28725; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:58:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.241]) by mail3-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D152CA00050; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:58:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from SN2PRD0302HT015.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (207.46.4.139) by TX2EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (10.9.99.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:58:41 +0000
Received: from SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.250]) by SN2PRD0302HT015.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.27.90.241]) with mapi id 14.01.0225.064; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:58:40 +0000
From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens
Thread-Index: AcxYTQ8Url5GUfgWROGRaafg4jY5WAAAisuAAACFmiAAAx1sgAAAwpIw
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:58:39 +0000
Message-ID: <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723B89E02@SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723B89BDE@SN2PRD0302MB137.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA697C47.17C73%eran@hueniverse.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA697C47.17C73%eran@hueniverse.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.107.0.76]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B26C1EF377CB694EAB6BDDC8E624B6E723B89E02SN2PRD0302MB137_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SN2PRD0302HT015.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%HUENIVERSE.COM$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%GMAIL.COM$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 Aug 2011 19:58:47 -0000

Section 1.5 does not explain why refresh tokens are there. If implementers don't understand why we did something then how are they supposed to get the implementation right?

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:35 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin; Dick Hardt
Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

Section 1.5 already covers refresh tokens. There are many use cases for refresh tokens. They are basically a protocol feature used to make scalability and security more flexible. Anonymity was never part of their design, and by the nature of this protocol, is more in the domain of the resource server (based on what information it exposes via its API). In fact, your email if the first such suggestion of anonymity.

EHL

From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com<mailto:tonynad@microsoft.com>>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:15:28 -0700
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>>
Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>)" <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

Many reasons, but none are explained in the specification

From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:51 AM
To: Anthony Nadalin
Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>)
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens

My recollection of refresh tokens was for security and revocation.

security: By having a short lived access token, a compromised access token would limit the time an attacker would have access

revocation: if the access token is self contained, authorization can be revoked by not issuing new access tokens. A resource does not need to query the authorization server to see if the access token is valid.This simplifies access token validation and makes it easier to scale and support multiple authorization servers.  There is a window of time when an access token is valid, but authorization is revoked.



On 2011-08-11, at 10:40 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:



Nowhere in the specification is there explanation for refresh tokens, The reason that the Refresh token was introduced was for anonymity. The scenario is that a client asks the user for access. The user wants to grant the access but not tell the client the user's identity. By issuing the refresh token as an 'identifier' for the user (as well as other context data like the resource) it's possible now to let the client get access without revealing anything about the user. Recommend that the above explanation be included so developers understand why the refresh tokens are there.
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email