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, 02 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 > >
- [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exc… internet-drafts
- [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-toke… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell