Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of "OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item

[Eve Maler <[e-mail]>]

Agreed on this point too, and also wanted to point out that the UMA usage of token introspection calls out to Justin's latest draft and formally profiles it, which we found easy to do. UMA has a mandatory-to-implement token format but also an extensible framework for defining whatever format suits. The method of run-time introspection at the AS, on the other hand, is locked down to increase interop.

	Eve

On 29 Jul 2014, at 11:13 AM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Agreed on this point -- which is why the only MTI bit in the individual draft is "active", which is whether or not the token was any good to begin with. There are a set of claims with defined semantics but all are optional, and the list is extensible. I think in practice we'll see people settle on a set of common ones.
> 
>  -- Justin
> 
> On 07/29/2014 02:11 PM, Bill Mills wrote:
>> This is exactly the same problem space as webfinger, you want to know something about a user and there's a useful set of information you might reasonably query, but in the end the server may have it's own schema of data it returns.  There won't be a single schema that fits all use cases, Any given RS/AS ecosystem may decide they have custom stuff and omit other stuff.  I think the more rigid the MTI schema gets the harder the battle in this case.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:56 AM, Paul Madsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Standardized Introspection will be valuable in NAPPS, where the AS and RS may be in different policy domains.
>> 
>> Even for single policy domains, there are enterprise scenarios where the RS is from a different vendor than the AS, such as when an API gateway validates tokens issued by an 'IdP' . We've necessarily defined our own introspection endpoint and our gateway partners have implemented it, (at the instruction of the customer in question). But of course it's proprietary to us.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> That doesn’t explain the need for inter-operability. What you’ve described is what will be common practice.
>>> 
>>> It’s a great open source technique, but that’s not a standard.
>>> 
>>> JWT is much different. JWT is a foundational specification that describes the construction and parsing of JSON based tokens. There is inter-op with token formats that build on top and there is inter-op between every communicating party.
>>> 
>>> In OAuth, a site may never implement token introspection nor may it do it the way you describe.  Why would that be a problem?  Why should the group spend time on something where there may be no inter-op need.
>>> 
>>> Now that said, if you are in the UMA community.  Inter-op is quite foundational.  It is very very important. But then maybe the spec should be defined within UMA?
>>> 
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>> @independentid
>>> www.independentid.com
>>> [e-mail]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It's analogous to JWT in many ways: when you've got the AS and the RS separated somehow (different box, different domain, even different software vendor) and you need to communicate a set of information about the approval delegation from the AS (who has the context to know about it) through to the RS (who needs to know about it to make the authorization call). JWT gives us an interoperable way to do this by passing values inside the token itself, introspection gives a way to pass the values by reference via the token as an artifact. The two are complementary, and there are even cases where you'd want to deploy them together.
>>>> 
>>>>  -- Justin
>>>> 
>>>> On 7/28/2014 8:11 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
>>>>> Could we have some discussion on the interop cases?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is it driven by scenarios where AS and resource are separate domains? Or may this be only of interest to specific protocols like UMA?
>>>>> 
>>>>> From a technique principle, the draft is important and sound. I am just not there yet on the reasons for an interoperable standard. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Phil
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 17:00, Thomas Broyer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes. This spec is of special interest to the platform we're building for http://www.oasis-eu.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> during the IETF #90 OAuth WG meeting, there was strong consensus in
>>>>>> adopting the "OAuth Token Introspection"
>>>>>> (draft-richer-oauth-introspection-06.txt) specification as an OAuth WG
>>>>>> work item.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We would now like to verify the outcome of this call for adoption on the
>>>>>> OAuth WG mailing list. Here is the link to the document:
>>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you did not hum at the IETF 90 OAuth WG meeting, and have an opinion
>>>>>> as to the suitability of adopting this document as a WG work item,
>>>>>> please send mail to the OAuth WG list indicating your opinion (Yes/No).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The confirmation call for adoption will last until August 10, 2014.  If
>>>>>> you have issues/edits/comments on the document, please send these
>>>>>> comments along to the list in your response to this Call for Adoption.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ciao
>>>>>> Hannes & Derek
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Thomas Broyer
>>>>>> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth


Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
[phone]                         http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl