Re: [OAUTH-WG] Token Mediating and session Information Backend For Frontend (TMI BFF)

[Dominick Baier <[e-mail]>]

Hey,

Tbh - I have a bit of a hard time to see why this requires a spec, if that
is all you are aiming at. Wouldn’t that be just an extension to the “OAuth
for web apps BCP?”.

All I can add here is - this approach would not work for any of our
customer. Because their real motivation is to implement a more and more
common security guideline these days - namely: “no JS-accessible tokens in
the browser” - but this document doesn’t cover this.

cheers
———
Dominick Baier

On 16. February 2021 at 22:01:37, Brian Campbell (
bcampbell=[e-mail]) wrote:




On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 9:48 AM Torsten Lodderstedt <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Thank you again for the explanation.
>
> I think your assumption about the overall flow should be described in the
> draft.
>

We did attempt to capture the assumptions in the draft but clearly could
have done a better job with it :)


>
> As I understand it now the core contribution of your proposal is to move
> refresh token management from frontend to backend. Is that correct?
>

 Taking that a bit further - the idea is that the backend takes on the
responsibilities of being a confidential client (client creds, token
acquisition, token management/persistence, etc.) to the external AS(s). And
TMI BFF describes a way for that backend to deliver access tokens to its
own frontend.

*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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth