Re: [OAUTH-WG] third party applications

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Wed, 02 September 2020 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
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 BD3FA3A0D64 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 06:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lodderstedt.net
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 zZjuM4_HtmE9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 06:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) (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 D86CE3A0D62 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id a26so6795993ejc.2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 06:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lodderstedt.net; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HV3ZYg7Pc7j4a+3KMNGEkozYMzAbCloLZein6WdbWg0=; b=O3rVxFbJMNMEQN78ZFAw0NNjBt4Vg8BUEXV2E5TFT5bm528SRbRm9ekL44NzFTMCNX Jt8CQG3Ufkea9Yi8lleIPNjhCBG6/iL9OACt04Oth5Rg7nPK4EiwgiRD02zF9hcW97kO geU1EyVnefdMEpKb3647Hbmsy+eOnGVEF1yxrJGqXlbDzn/+V3G8jHfV+O/x5OKqEDmS iRQ7FlMagdSPcNyj43AjjUEhySny+VpJhFWqcWApJbQiAR8/K95FT4T0zyQqmKRdd2Wj YpxxFPqowi1SAPhHq7HH9qNzdo2Aby8OwT3QbI54NTdSJ0OHN3M4EvnHO6lWz4GCp+Xc oULg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HV3ZYg7Pc7j4a+3KMNGEkozYMzAbCloLZein6WdbWg0=; b=fwJuji+qem70HuD62UrAcI62PPTTbsCne2849+pYL2gypwgL9+o+LtvjwHIA4Z0Ono OeSqaT7Spcc7xdr/Nu2GziRgvdq0RPRRZoLcQecaHT2WtV7L7/cwpqEfXe4wxTBm9Tk3 xkBXTtrs/QyRqgNnAp00hQ+4go7mZbh1rVIWc9ojitCe3yD028DXfVVU2Vd3yEwBAFQO FHu/y6oSDPRvxdwdS6DAaUY0248Qs/lAa+LfXY4NFZCvq3rZ0r9Jw5LA75T/tCNg8Fcx wFFVkqd9WGNGrOVHDd/+An56feThNxSpPmK+9l09cQ3nUQohEBNZxJIRYYeLmI28LIJX kTbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MUDGXaX/ICS0VKyai+UYxadBGhMLMNw6sVCaLM++hxvMWKgXv V802r/m+nUix7uJeL1E9XznO4g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyq2l1p8LR46XsGE20y3quSJ0vl2NydgzdbkcRbed6eSX/ol36TcUi1t3oVd+DOkRlLF0PJxw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:fb8c:: with SMTP id lr12mr119660ejb.9.1599054806179; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 06:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p200300eb8f1e2ac038b3eb3743377987.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (p200300eb8f1e2ac038b3eb3743377987.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:eb:8f1e:2ac0:38b3:eb37:4337:7987]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r15sm4087216edv.94.2020.09.02.06.53.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Sep 2020 06:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAP42hAsrPvE-bMLdYhkvX516wBKMwCjNJaOhcZ14LQPr+Eh7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:53:24 +0200
Cc: Dima Postnikov <dima@postnikov.net>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9C150616-AF6B-4FE2-81D8-1535BE52E961@lodderstedt.net>
References: <CAEMK1uY0cSOyyU2t0N9RTOzmMeEpfMsb7K9WfQD=fQdCde9jTQ@mail.gmail.com> <B2AA5092-32BD-499D-9EAF-09AB95E6E9B6@lodderstedt.net> <CAGBSGjoKfR1DpQ47oDPi8xqt_Bq54ywpTvZkH9uJwHRZkDbf-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAEMK1ubU0tD37yz0mKuOOP5n5uQ5pjLdLgY1OJWHGNh-iGcScw@mail.gmail.com> <dddbfebf-c5d0-6386-3a1d-c38526fdfba3@free.fr> <CAEMK1ubKn73gfM34yswmuAHzmOneXF9aRQ7uRnJ3DnNz56nZLA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAP42hAsrPvE-bMLdYhkvX516wBKMwCjNJaOhcZ14LQPr+Eh7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Denniss <wdenniss=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/p9D-TedkdbEk0qBYNXRdC3LY9Ow>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] third party applications
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, 02 Sep 2020 13:53:30 -0000


> On 2. Sep 2020, at 05:58, William Denniss <wdenniss=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> +1 to drop the "third party", there are valid first party use-cases. 
> 
> On the subject, in first party cases the access may not be all that "limited", I wonder if it should read more genericly "an application to obtain access to an HTTP service"?

I suggest to stick with “limited” since privilege restriction is always a good idea. 

> 
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:20 PM Dima Postnikov <dima@postnikov.net> wrote:
> Good point Denis, thanks
> 
> The OAuth 2.1 authorization framework enables an third-party
>    application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on
>    behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction
>    between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the
>    
> third-party
>  application to obtain access on its own behalf.  This
>    specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 2.0 Authorization
>    Framework described in 
> RFC 6749.
> 
> And an additional section is required to describe scenarios where this framework works well and scenarios when it doesn't.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 AM Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> wrote:
> Hello Dima,
> 
> Not exactly. 
> 
> Change :
>  or by allowing the third-party application
> into:
> 
>         or by allowing the application
> 
> Denis
> 
>> Thank everyone for your feedback.
>> 
>> So the abstract could look like this:
>> 
>> The OAuth 2.1 authorization framework enables an third-party
>>    application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on
>>    behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction
>>    between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the
>>    third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.  This
>>    specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 2.0 Authorization
>>    Framework described in 
>> RFC 6749.
>> 
>> And an additional section is required to describe scenarios where this framework works well and scenarios when it doesn't.
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:37 AM Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote:
>> I agree. While the original motivations for OAuth were to support third-party apps, it's proven to be useful in many other kinds of situations as well, even when it's a "first-party" app but the OAuth server is operated by a different organization than the APIs. I don't think the abstract needs any qualification on this and would only confuse people further. Any clarifications of which situations are appropriate for using OAuth could be explored in a different section in the spec.
>> 
>> Aaron Parecki
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:02 AM Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten=40lodderstedt.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> I agree. OAuth works for 3rd as well as 1st parties as well. 
>> 
>> > On 28. Aug 2020, at 05:26, Dima Postnikov <dima@postnikov.net> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > Can "third-party" term be removed from the specification?
>> > 
>> > The standard and associated best practices apply to other applications that act on behalf of a resource owner, too (internal, "first-party" and etc).
>> > 
>> > Regards,
>> > 
>> > Dima
>> > 
>> > The OAuth 2.1 authorization framework enables a third-party
>> > 
>> >    application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on
>> >    behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction
>> >    between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the
>> >    third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf.  This
>> >    specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 2.0 Authorization
>> >    Framework described in 
>> > RFC 6749.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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