Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 02 June 2017 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rifaat.ietf@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 33CE812EB66 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 VPHnYx6tjYTT for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (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 0CFFC12950B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p62so3902818vkp.0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 05:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=t/N+Sh+MWU4iNgVUQWJyHpuBO0WCGtc8qYxLeP4iXXU=; b=BBX3CyTzLKjgP+xzbDCJ5yKHUz6XbQQpOoa/NHqPSupxnPQ4yB+bPoVeSi/1FLh/x6 tIH/dNEl/L32Arniv46TsIiUjL8lWsXteNH1FUY0P06CQ7TgzZ1S9fF/QtO1Vw27RGuv eVcgyUvwhJe7GCjp71oAq/RQQigNJLNfSwY3RkFtsB9dz8poVTdPri+kbE04TCGwflcZ 9FOYk5QZ/+GzkdZk3LKlLji2T1oj3r4C2LHgIhgCseiIhuQ5FLwMiJxn1x3PBzGSzTp8 tLJFef2I5EokE2qd8wOZrjqdw1FIRBvYrrE63j5NfxNGRarjJGjlQ4EX5wKZSa3o/UmL LsVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=t/N+Sh+MWU4iNgVUQWJyHpuBO0WCGtc8qYxLeP4iXXU=; b=ZXy8+T3XzxPG5OQ8mQ8vlHoz97JfIs/W/Hy6js3Ty6iG8uMtnBVDTshg8Y7KNm48Yj 56+mmHVPq8Z3QZ8O/8sr5hjtNjt0fRNmTye0rs5fFjmNel5EDYGFYn2qomhWzdly3rxY 0t7XdGc/C4L9EbBI9wDl9/ohI63lVXPc8PZhsWLoNIwzvo2e16JzGS5zWnw8gNtcI/M8 JxpDGRqoScg8l2i6Vw0U7SkjCfknAoZDid1m/XDEqllj++pr3nAQ6jm7Se6fE4ro49XN eq3hSas3S2DgyTs5VfTU7NHRKbj0hAXunUCyqRWfUmyNiQCWS1w1X1C6jJmjhkwMDSC9 Bp2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBruJ3eG9sX2V3TKvHfHwTUoPVb8xAUKkNKpmjmJECjUv8qIQtf 4qgL3o51GaKH8Xc+EkNKgvLOEGaPlg==
X-Received: by 10.31.85.198 with SMTP id j189mr1858688vkb.45.1496405320885; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 05:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.76.91 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 05:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+k3eCRTYU9bJWrmcKpfpo_P5LfGgf1NStN6A6qm4T4EWAMLtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148416124213.8244.5842562779051799977.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+k3eCTE1NM90QcZRFR0jATCqdeJWyTRUb6Ryp52n9FRg6aGpA@mail.gmail.com> <9199091B-5D7F-4D66-9EC5-CB0EF2D3CF6D@lodderstedt.net> <CA+k3eCTjmifjsbec80vGTE5Hw4ws7oARuaatDk4RYOLK26-87Q@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR21MB050479DBD8A7AB6342682209F5330@CY4PR21MB0504.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <30B37ED3-6E3B-4739-9917-BDEC198CA027@lodderstedt.net> <CABzCy2ArQ29xtyzT+t4i1fq9XZT+fMLgsw5oV75aFTkvVf8tgw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCRMwS7KiCyrGm8d6Syo=SpfR65zSb0MFJ8A1ns=DVrR0g@mail.gmail.com> <CAGL6epKM8DyTqG4gLr0OnVJXtZyhziiit7UnRjBs-ME0rvPtpA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCStAqU0kQOuyrOkjPO8zejf519ZxcVFzkV-y_feR8STUQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCQUeJyfROy1ZNSoPhQzLOSi4NTp8WLwehT-NrmyL=4z1Q@mail.gmail.com> <be5e59c1-d6ca-cc48-8a81-56b1dd58026c@free.fr> <CA+k3eCSdDDufp6+p4RmxOwcGzcaEX+W4MotE9qWDQNgiYcHBsg@mail.gmail.com> <58cc229c-ca5e-18d4-8b62-fbb3853f5cca@free.fr> <CA+k3eCSE5CcUMA4iHvk6LyHs+vxPYOO4-X3smWnr1Ou1jWU_-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCRTYU9bJWrmcKpfpo_P5LfGgf1NStN6A6qm4T4EWAMLtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 08:08:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGL6epLWN-X-5qHwaN2G6emufkxOkUxLexapX2Nd=bUHBhKTHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114e4040979a830550f90316"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/pblYbyEU-Ar8v_o_2EYcc9l_8fc>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 12:08:46 -0000

Brian,

We did not see any objection to this latest proposal.

Can you please go ahead and publish version -08 of the draft?
We would like to start a WGLC on the new version.

Regards,
 Rifaat


On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
wrote:

> Following up on this, I'd like to propose a different and less invasive
> change to the "actor_token" text. The new wording is below and not much
> different than the text in the current draft. Barring any solid objections
> to this in the next week or so, I'll publish -08 at which point I believe
> the document will be ready for WGLC.
>
> actor_token
>
> OPTIONAL.  A security token that represents the identity of the acting
> party. Typically this will be the party that is authorized to use the
> requested security token and act on behalf of the subject.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Brian Campbell <
> bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:
>
>> The token exchange framework facilitates deployments like this one
>> https://help.salesforce.com/articleView?id=remoteaccess_oaut
>> h_asset_token_flow.htm or https://developer.box.com/docs
>> /getting-started-with-new-box-view, for example, and I don't think pure
>> plug and play interoperability is a realistic goal. The framework promotes
>> interoperability in the form of common patterns and parameters that can be
>> supported in libraries, products, and services.
>>
>> There's not one "other case" I have in mind but rather just broadening
>> the text somewhat to more straightforwardly accommodate other cases.  One
>> potential example is where the actor_token represents an authorizing party
>> (again maybe needed for policy or auditing) to the token exchange event
>> itself rather than the party that's having access rights assigned to it
>> (implicitly with impersonation or explicitly with delegation).
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> Even if Token Exchange is a framework, the goal is to be finally able to
>>> interoperate.
>>>
>>> Whether we have one or two parameters, would you be able to provide a
>>> precise semantics for the "other case" you have in mind ?
>>>
>>> Denis
>>>
>>> Yes, I omitted your comments in that post because I'd previously replied
>>> to you in a separate message where I said that the "actor_token is a
>>> security token so that's not an issue that needs to be addressed."
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17247.html
>>>
>>> The other point you've just made about having very precise semantics for
>>> a field is a fair one. However, I wanted to avoid introducing yet another
>>> field (or really two fields b/c of the associated *_type for each inbound
>>> token field), for what felt like a minor semantic variation that could be
>>> easily accommodated by the existing framework, to the draft that already
>>> has a lot of options and parameters on the request. And Token Exchange
>>> really is a framework. I think that, to some extent, the framework is a bit
>>> of a Rorschach test for deployers and implementers to utilize to solve
>>> their specific issues and needs. I expect that will be the case regardless.
>>> And I am proposing to somewhat genericize the text around one request
>>> parameter to be more reflective of that.
>>>
>>> I would like to hear from others in the WG though.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian,
>>>>
>>>> You omitted to include my comments in this post. So here it is again:
>>>>
>>>> ===========================================================
>>>>
>>>> The current text is:
>>>>
>>>> actor_token OPTIONAL. A security token that represents the identity of
>>>> the party that is authorized to use the requested security token and act on
>>>> behalf of the subject.
>>>>
>>>> This sentence is indeed wrong since an actor-token is not a security
>>>> token.
>>>>
>>>> So your proposed change does not solve this issue: actor_token
>>>> OPTIONAL.  A security token that represents the identity of the acting
>>>> party.
>>>>
>>>> The current text states:
>>>>
>>>> Typically, in the request, the subject_token represents the identity of
>>>> the party on behalf of whom
>>>> the token is being requested while the actor_token represents the
>>>> identity of the party to whom the access
>>>> rights of the issued token are being delegated.
>>>>
>>>> Logically, the definition should be along the following lines:
>>>>
>>>>  actor_token OPTIONAL. Indicates the identity of the party to whom the
>>>> access rights of the issued token are being delegated.
>>>>
>>>> If there is no delegation, then this field (which is optional) will not
>>>> be used.
>>>>
>>>> ===========================================================
>>>>
>>>> I read your argumentation, but I maintain my comment. Each field should
>>>> have a precise semantics.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to have another semantics, you should propose to define
>>>> another field with its precise meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Denis
>>>>
>>>> Let me throw out a bit more context about this. The "actor_token"
>>>> might, in a delegation scenario, represent the identity of the party to
>>>> whom the access rights of the issued token are being delegated. That's the
>>>> typical delegation scenario that is discussed in the draft. However, the
>>>> "actor_token" might also be utilized/needed by the AS in an impersonation
>>>> scenario for policy or auditing reasons even when the resulting issued
>>>> token doesn't contain info about the delegation or actor. Similarly, the
>>>> actor might not be strictly doing the impersonation but rather just be a
>>>> party (again maybe needed for policy or auditing) to the token exchange
>>>> event itself.  When I wrote the "actor_token" text in section 2.1 some ~18
>>>> months ago I had the delegation scenario at the front of my mind and
>>>> (clearly) intended to accommodate it. However, I didn't intend to limit it
>>>> to only that and, looking at the text again, I think what is there now is
>>>> too prescriptive and narrow. Thus my proposing to generalize the text
>>>> somewhat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Brian Campbell <
>>>> bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do have one minor issue I'd like to raise that relates to some
>>>>> conversations I've been a party to recently about implementations and
>>>>> applications of token exchange.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that the current text in §2.1 for the "actor_token" is overly
>>>>> specific towards the delegation scenario. I'd propose the language be
>>>>> generalized somewhat to allow more versatility in applications/deployments
>>>>> of the token exchange framework. Here's that text:
>>>>>
>>>>>    actor_token
>>>>>       OPTIONAL.  A security token that represents the identity of the
>>>>>       acting party.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <
>>>>> rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last email from Brian addresses the multiple audiences/resources
>>>>>> issue with an error code, and we did not see any objection to this approach
>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Authors,*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any other open issues with this draft?
>>>>>> Do you believe it is ready for WGLC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>  Rifaat & Hannes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Brian Campbell <
>>>>>> bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As mentioned during the Chicago meeting the "invalid_target" error
>>>>>>> code that was added in -07 was intended to give the AS a standard way to
>>>>>>> reject request with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand
>>>>>>> or is unwilling or unable to process based on policy or whatever criteria .
>>>>>>> It was intended as a compromise, of sorts, to allow for the multiple
>>>>>>> resources/audiences in the request but provide an easy out for the AS of
>>>>>>> saying it can't be supported based on whatever implementation or security
>>>>>>> or policy it has.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are cases where tokens are supposed to be consumed at
>>>>>>>> multiple places and the `aud` needed to capture them. That's why `aud` is a
>>>>>>>> multi-valued field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:35 AM Torsten Lodderstedt <
>>>>>>>> torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> May I ask you to explain this reason?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 27.03.2017 um 08:48 schrieb Mike Jones <
>>>>>>>>> Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the same reason that the “aud” claim is multi-valued in JWTs,
>>>>>>>>> the audience needs to stay multi-valued in Token Exchange.  Ditto for
>>>>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                                                        Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                                                        -- Mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>> <oauth-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Brian Campbell
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 8:45 AM
>>>>>>>>> *To:* Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action:
>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the review and question, Torsten.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The desire to support multiple audience/resource values in the
>>>>>>>>> request came up during a review and discussion among the authors of the
>>>>>>>>> document when preparing the -03 draft. As I recall, it was said that both
>>>>>>>>> Salesforce and Microsoft had use-cases for it. I incorporated support for
>>>>>>>>> it into the draft acting in the role of editor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From an individual perspective, I tend to agree with you that
>>>>>>>>> allowing for multiple audiences/resources adds a lot of complexity that's
>>>>>>>>> like not needed in many (or most) cases. And I would personally be open to
>>>>>>>>> making audience and resource mutual exclusive and single valued. A question
>>>>>>>>> for the WG I suppose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "invalid_target" error code that was added in -07 was intended
>>>>>>>>> to give the AS a standard way to deal with the complexity and reject
>>>>>>>>> request with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is
>>>>>>>>> unwilling or unable to process. It was intended as a compromise, of sorts,
>>>>>>>>> to allow for the multiples but provide an easy out of saying it can't be
>>>>>>>>> supported based on whatever implementation or policy of the AS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <
>>>>>>>>> torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks for the clarification around resource, audience and scope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here are my comments on the draft:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In section 2.1 it states: „Multiple "resource" parameters may be
>>>>>>>>> used to indicate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       that the issued token is intended to be used at the multiple
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       resources listed.“
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you please explain the rational in more detail? I don’t
>>>>>>>>> understand why there is a need to ask for access tokens, which are good for
>>>>>>>>> multiple resources at once. This is a request type more or less exclusively
>>>>>>>>> used in server to server scenarios, right? So the only reason I can think
>>>>>>>>> of is call reduction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the other side, this feature increases the AS's complexity,
>>>>>>>>> e.g. its policy may prohibit to issue tokens for multiple resources in
>>>>>>>>> general or the particular set the client is asking for. How shall the AS
>>>>>>>>> handles such cases?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it is getting even more complicated given there could also be
>>>>>>>>> multiple audience values and the client could mix them:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Multiple "audience" parameters
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       may be used to indicate that the issued token is intended to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       used at the multiple audiences listed.  The "audience" and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       "resource" parameters may be used together to indicate
>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       target services with a mix of logical names and physical
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       locations.“
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And in the end the client may add some scope values to the „meal“,
>>>>>>>>> which brings us to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> „Effectively, the requested access rights of the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    token are the cartesian product of all the scopes at all the
>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    services."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I personally would suggest to drop support for multiple audience
>>>>>>>>> and resource parameters and make audience and resource mutual exclusive. I
>>>>>>>>> think this is sufficient and much easier to implement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Torsten.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 11.01.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Brian Campbell <
>>>>>>>>> bcampbell@pingidentity.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Draft -07 of "OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange" has been published. The
>>>>>>>>> primary change in -07 is the addition of a description of the relationship
>>>>>>>>> between audience/resource/scope, which was a request or comment that came
>>>>>>>>> up during the f2f meeting in Seoul.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Excerpted from the Document History:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    -07
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    o  Fixed typo (desecration -> discretion).
>>>>>>>>>    o  Added an explanation of the relationship between scope,
>>>>>>>>> audience
>>>>>>>>>       and resource in the request and added an "invalid_target"
>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>       code enabling the AS to tell the client that the requested
>>>>>>>>>       audiences/resources were too broad.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:00 PM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchang
>>>>>>>>> e-07.txt
>>>>>>>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>>>>>>> directories.
>>>>>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol of the
>>>>>>>>> IETF.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         Title           : OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange
>>>>>>>>>         Authors         : Michael B. Jones
>>>>>>>>>                           Anthony Nadalin
>>>>>>>>>                           Brian Campbell
>>>>>>>>>                           John Bradley
>>>>>>>>>                           Chuck Mortimore
>>>>>>>>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
>>>>>>>>>         Pages           : 31
>>>>>>>>>         Date            : 2017-01-11
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>>>    This specification defines a protocol for an HTTP- and JSON-
>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>    Security Token Service (STS) by defining how to request and
>>>>>>>>> obtain
>>>>>>>>>    security tokens from OAuth 2.0 authorization servers, including
>>>>>>>>>    security tokens employing impersonation and delegation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>>>>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>
> [Message clipped]
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>