Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.1 - drop implicit flow?

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Sat, 07 March 2020 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dick.hardt@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 A81F13A15D9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 08:37:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=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 5L-VdKlSVp2x for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 08:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (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 76E193A15D8 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 08:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id q19so5543205ljp.9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 08:37:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ti78OA4FNtH770la1YK1cgfJWTkRWKPpEKb/bbpLtjs=; b=HQxJ4t9LkH38J6BBGTgQBh4qjMJk5TrSHJ/lpNVjnNW19zmsoJA0GHWc5aPSU/eSq9 OQbuUTjHvvEeZnw6X11E3qxeq5P4AP/YZIzaAOdjZ9oBtaXRXSI549vpcVFwxdw76z6l V0Nx/6pNuXgNwd1A/SURab49FnEUXs18+E7gwYL4tMMivasK6eo6R9NFlQHwTRjhu7Ya xzj0BY0zOMJVOgsYfLTLHCX+BDJY9wWhR9E6AQBMS605fEmApMhQ7YoUTWMJquW570ds dxRjDbFfKIpUagrkuY5vqI/hlOYGxfRKr2UOfbv3zeeCLxIWLNw1wKwH0hz/PgMR7Alk IJrg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ti78OA4FNtH770la1YK1cgfJWTkRWKPpEKb/bbpLtjs=; b=oxYY7eMhqCn0rq48/T7t13Ccg04OwRtWpheSTO+2lwaGaVj7F3DaTBuOyMl055B5tL ud6t7MRiRXWLi/48owPAjltDGsRKyUZit8DwdGerOnS601CyvqiGHxUIp4J8t0Fu/OyW sMcdPxqgSDjK+24mgf/GaDSC5T++oTkr8uYeyQ+vSibjTvwnNpiajl45pnYNOyYyJOCq N+darFn30Bz+5w/8vFsannCN/TguE+VqnTinD/xWgGm9AtFbcQXSjhFr3IxMIDcxLdvb wMGA+MObth06kvHkav+CmMgyiYJcgYvYH9HsH9FTbq+jX0P4RK10WMqtqVOB8yEGswlX cpPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0p+WFkie+RR+gcaVxoO/YLqOdzntBp60nd897djzIweuSUamBh V3uEXVKEHwtYR6cQZ1dgWningRDIAnk4oNWyEnovgyii
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vtkueEZO054NAAI5+17T7mXAPHbM/gIHSs4CJPw?= =?utf-8?q?bpn610hJByfxz0Om+LAdwyaYbpBMxjZNv9ZfU95/RCTVzJk=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3c06:: with SMTP id j6mr5256598lja.138.1583599035318; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 08:37:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD9ie-s9HT=9MKPK+GpVngZc+9QMxHS6KL-Sfq-UPQz2VQ3ioA@mail.gmail.com> <3F805BA8-8ABB-4939-96CC-FD2FEC811322@lodderstedt.net>
In-Reply-To: <3F805BA8-8ABB-4939-96CC-FD2FEC811322@lodderstedt.net>
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 08:36:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD9ie-sZOG0=pbFW72fZR3XtzsNFRFCyFmF5xeEPFUzHzdmHaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Cc: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f785b005a046611c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/r2XIIySjXOTAq7-P7TfK28PycUs>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.1 - drop implicit flow?
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: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 16:37:20 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 16:37:20 -0000

Brian: does that meet your requirements?

If not, how about if we refer to OIDC as an example extension without
saying it is implicit?
ᐧ

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 8:29 AM Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
wrote:

> I think keeping the response type as extension point and not mentioning
> implicit at all is sufficient to support Brian’s objective.
>
> Am 07.03.2020 um 17:06 schrieb Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>om>:
>
> 
> How about if we add in a nonnormative reference to OIDC as an explicit
> example of an extension:
>
> "For example, OIDC defines an implicit grant with additional security
> features."
>
> or similar language
> ᐧ
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 5:27 AM Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The name implicit grant is unfortunately somewhat misleading/confusing
>> but, for the case at hand, the extension mechanism isn't grant type so much
>> as response type and even response mode.
>>
>> The perspective shared during the office hours call was, paraphrasing as
>> best I can, that there are legitimate uses of implicit style flows in
>> OpenID Connect (that likely won't be updated) and it would be really nice
>> if this new 2.1 or whatever it's going to be document didn't imply that
>> they were disallowed or problematic or otherwise create unnecessary FUD or
>> confusion for the large population of existing deployments.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:56 PM Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking to close out this topic. I heard that Brian and Vittorio
>>> shared some points of view in the office hours, and wanted to confirm:
>>>
>>> + Remove implicit flow from OAuth 2.1 and continue to highlight that
>>> grant types are an extension mechanism.
>>>
>>> For example, if OpenID Connect were to be updated to refer to OAuth 2.1
>>> rather than OAuth 2..0, OIDC could define the implicit grant type with all
>>> the appropriate considerations.
>>>
>>>
>>> ᐧ
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:49 PM Dominick Baier <
>>> dbaier@leastprivilege.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No - please get rid of it.
>>>>
>>>> ———
>>>> Dominick Baier
>>>>
>>>> On 18. February 2020 at 21:32:31, Dick Hardt (dick.hardt@gmail.com)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hey List
>>>>
>>>> (I'm using the OAuth 2.1 name as a placeholder for the doc that Aaron,
>>>> Torsten, and I are working on)
>>>>
>>>> Given the points Aaron brought up in
>>>>
>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/hXEfLXgEqrUQVi7Qy8X_279DCNU
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have concerns with dropping the implicit flow from the
>>>> OAuth 2.1 document so that developers don't use it?
>>>>
>>>> /Dick
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>>
>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
>> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited..
>> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
>> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
>> your computer. Thank you.*
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>