From nobody Tue Sep 29 22:21:42 2020 Return-Path: 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 B9B173A1210 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:21:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=authlete-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 cuU4PzndK16u for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:21:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (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 BB0723A120F for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:21:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id k10so259279wru.6 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:21:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=authlete-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nrQi5pPJyCO+DMo6jqwsCL8ZnoRT5cobzcfpUXlzCEA=; b=PSQcUp6pCzNDxBOqYnpdfRYhgYFZKM4mXvo116oSRMxWUdr85eN2H40uGarvO45Y4u 8F4yb/G4tg8D0SLZhn0Q9VB7r8ULDs+6d0Y3Lk+xRqjDbMEMIuXrp+M9a1gMzutkw5A9 z+IitZ9Y7JkxLNYV0kigeNVSEjRp4yQ0CbqU1i1NjTP+ToNNW7Dl1QHxg3v6MFlhJe27 9dRP7P1St0B3/Ce7M6wZNxsDXHer/29OebByticn4qJXBnaS+HlN/nVppywHQXnpZjaq l13k3Viebrqf22INyx4Sd3SmIGiy/Igr96s/unBx/7/0gkSGE9uGHbctRFCwsgGuV35b HbZw== 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; bh=nrQi5pPJyCO+DMo6jqwsCL8ZnoRT5cobzcfpUXlzCEA=; b=TZ0dbJUgSBe8WzIea7TKRyyKCt0EJHHFJbWtp+sGYwGSj0OJYef8iVYL3DMT+AWKGN 5Lm/ttzeYB0dpfq9IF1gr1tp/U5X7V9tNnCQFWjT0IqtyOG27lh0td6h7ISCzhLdjV8Q VKugpDVkjl/FAtG+zykBJVOrWjoeLk1VoQgwvTNiXqYYT4vX+riXZoxgD0PQ8ghYKSoF OygyyKlnCtGnGgutPUFmJkL4Ntm4xpffTaMAsIqy+wg7C6e8g9rgDOOwHsRFaK/uhTGc uLOWBIAVHZBlBUQmTe6UarFH3y68IEKMVdeCm1frUYBdgDdG7PcJRaPmKLA/mDOr6uxA xD0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531sSryT/Zrzw2rlKPN4+MjmyDvPWjRVlqwu5qLmDTjBo4Yxhmdw zaVKU/N3H1rLAwjo3k8C+xg3s+Kfliuj9Bv90dQHtGd0HAtyzOaQ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzdvR3kcQiU4RASRYe+ZWvTOJ5sKqPpDJeP6bAKEn7vtouV3r8yrBjEQRd5r4bdQh4s8VLUqGcgsEhOgicNd4o= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:494b:: with SMTP id r11mr932586wrs.227.1601443296226; Tue, 29 Sep 2020 22:21:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2cd8bfd1-f491-0086-979f-0527ccf16281@connect2id.com> In-Reply-To: From: Takahiko Kawasaki Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:21:25 +0900 Message-ID: To: oauth Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ccc43305b0811229" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [JAR] scope parameter outside request object of OIDC request X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: OAUTH WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 05:21:42 -0000 --000000000000ccc43305b0811229 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" So, my suggestion is "When JAR compatible behaviors are employed, AS implementations should not require that an OIDC request come with `scope` query/form parameter when the request uses a request object." (NOTE: "an OIDC request" implies that the request object contains `scope` including `openid`.) Any thoughts? Taka On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:07 PM Takahiko Kawasaki wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > Just FYI. To be exact, FAPI (version 1) Part 1 (Read-Only) does not > require all request parameters be put duplicately in a request object. It > is FAPI (version 1) Part 2 (Read-Write) (Section 5.2.2 > > Clause 10) that has the requirement. In the context of FAPI Part 1, a > request object does not have to be used. One more note is that parameters > inside a request object and parameters outside a request object are merged > (as they are in OIDC Core 1.0) when the authorization request is being made > for FAPI Read-Only APIs (not for FAPI Read-Write APIs). > > Taka > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:14 PM Vladimir Dzhuvinov < > vladimir@connect2id.com> wrote: > >> Hi Taka, >> >> Speaking of the OIDC Core 1.0 conformance tests, IMO those should not >> change with the publication of JAR. >> >> Speaking of the FAPI 1.0 tests, those already require all request >> parameters to be JWT-secured, which makes the requests also JAR compliant: >> all parameters are found in the JWT, with scope (as complete scope or >> minimally required scope=openid), response_type, client_id and redirect_uri >> also having a copy outside the JWT, as query parameters. Thus the request >> is OIDC as well as JAR compliant. >> >> If I had an RP I would always construct OIDC auth requests like that, to >> make sure they comply with OIDC as well as the new JAR spec (and will not >> have issues with servers which implement both specs but are not able to >> "switch" behavior for some reason). >> >> Vladimir >> On 23/09/2020 14:58, Takahiko Kawasaki wrote: >> >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> Thank you for your reply. It sounds that your opinion is "`scope` request >> parameter must exist outside the request object even if JAR applies if the >> authorization request is an OIDC request". I'm on the fence on this topic >> and just wondered whether those who had wanted to remove `response_type` >> outside the request object (although doing it was a breaking change) would >> want to remove `scope` outside the request object too with the same >> motivation (although I don't remember well what was the motivation). JAR >> dares to drop `response_type`, so it would not be surprising to see that >> JAR dares to drop `scope` (including `openid`) too. >> >> OIDC Core 1.0 requires `response_type`, but JAR allows omission of the >> parameter if the parameter is included in the request object. >> >> If we applied the same logic, we would be able to state: >> >> OIDC Core 1.0 requires `scope` (including `openid`), but JAR allows >> omission of the parameter if the parameter is included in the request >> object. >> >> In terms of `response_type`, practically speaking, JAR has modified OIDC >> Core 1.0. Because JAR has already been allowed to go so far as that point, >> I would say it is difficult to find a convincing reason not to allow >> omission of `scope`. >> >> AFAIK, in the context of OIDC Core 1.0, parameters that are required to >> exist outside a request object even if they are included in the request >> object are `client_id`, `response_type` and `scope`. Because `client_id` is >> mandatory in JAR (it has become mandatory after long discussion), >> discussion for the parameter is not needed. Because the community has >> already reached consensus that `response_type` can be omitted, discussion >> for the parameter is not needed, either. What I've brought here is >> discussion for `scope`, hopefully the last parameter that is affected by >> JAR. >> >> Again, I'm on the fence on this topic. However, because logical >> conclusion (at least of mine) is that JAR should allow omission of `scope` >> (it also should be noted that JAR's basic rule prohibits referring to >> request parameters outside a request object), I want to see explicit >> consensus if `scope` (including `openid`) outside a request object is still >> required even after JAR is enabled. >> >> In short, my question is "Should `scope` be omitted?" I guess that the >> conclusion will affect the official conformance suite. >> >> Best Regards, >> Takahiko Kawasaki >> Authlete, Inc. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:59 AM Vladimir Dzhuvinov < >> vladimir@connect2id.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Taka, >>> On 21/09/2020 20:12, Takahiko Kawasaki wrote: >>> >>> If we allow JAR (JWT Secured Authorization Request) to relax the >>> requirement of `response_type` request parameter (outside a request object) >>> from mandatory to optional, should we relax the following requirement of >>> `scope` request parameter stated in OIDC Core 1.0 Section 6.1, too? >>> >>> ---------- >>> Even if a scope parameter is present in the Request Object value, a >>> scope parameter MUST always be passed using the OAuth 2.0 request syntax >>> containing the openid scope value to indicate to the underlying OAuth 2.0 >>> logic that this is an OpenID Connect request. >>> ---------- >>> >>> Otherwise, an authorization request like >>> "client_id=...&request(_uri)=..." fails if the request object represents an >>> OIDC request. An authorization request has to look like >>> "client_id=...&request(_uri)=...&scope=openid" (`scope` including `openid` >>> has to be given) even if the authorization server conforms to JAR and >>> allows omission of `response_type` request parameter. >>> >>> The bottom of section 5 has normative text which allows a JAR compliant >>> server to also comply with the OIDC spec with its own style of request / >>> request_uri parameter handling insofar as to not reject other query params >>> (such as scope, etc). The difference is that according to JAR their values >>> cannot be used or merged (as in OIDC). But what can be reasonably done is >>> to detect scope=openid as you say and then switch to OIDC style request >>> object behavior. >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-30#section-5 >>> >>> The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object >>> duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward >>> compatibility etc. However, the authorization server supporting this >>> specification MUST only use the parameters included in the request >>> object. >>> >>> The confusion between the two specs clears when it's seen that the >>> request objects in OIDC and JAR have different objectives. >>> >>> In OIDC the objective is to enable securing of selected parameters. >>> >>> In JAR the objective is to secure the entire authz request. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think that implementers want to know consensus on this because it >>> affects implementations. Has this been discussed yet? >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Takahiko Kawasaki >>> Authlete, Inc. >>> >>> >>> Vladimir >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > --000000000000ccc43305b0811229 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So, my suggestion is "When JAR compa= tible behaviors are employed, AS implementations should not require that an= OIDC request come with `scope` query/form parameter when the request uses = a request object." (NOTE: "an OIDC request" implies that the= request object contains `scope` including `openid`.)

Any thoughts?<= br>

Taka

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:07 = PM Takahiko Kawasaki <taka@authlete= .com> wrote:
Hi Vladimir,

Just FYI. To be exact,= FAPI (version 1) Part 1 (Read-Only) does not require all request parameter= s be put duplicately in a request object. It is FAPI (version 1) Part 2 (Re= ad-Write) (Section 5.2.2 Clause 1= 0) that has the requirement. In the context of FAPI Part 1, a request objec= t does not have to be used. One more note is that parameters inside a reque= st object and parameters outside a request object are merged (as they are i= n OIDC Core 1.0) when the authorization request is being made for FAPI Read= -Only APIs (not for FAPI Read-Write APIs).

Taka


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:14 PM Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect= 2id.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

Hi Taka,

Speaking of the OIDC Core 1.0 conformance tests, IMO those should not change with the publication of JAR.

Speaking of the FAPI 1.0 tests, those already require all request parameters to be JWT-secured, which makes the requests also JAR compliant: all parameters are found in the JWT, with scope (as complete scope or minimally required scope=3Dopenid), response_type, client_id and redirect_uri also having a copy outside the JWT, as query parameters. Thus the request is OIDC as well as JAR compliant.

If I had an RP I would always construct OIDC auth requests like that, to make sure they comply with OIDC as well as the new JAR spec (and will not have issues with servers which implement both specs but are not able to "switch" behavior for some reason= ).

Vladimir

On 23/09/2020 14:58, Takahiko Kawasaki wrote:
=20
Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for your reply. It sounds that your opinion is "`scope` request parameter must exist outside the request object even if JAR applies if the authorization request is an OIDC request". I'm on the fence on this topic and just wondered whether those who had wanted to remove `response_type` outside the request object (although doing it was a breaking change) would want to remove `scope` outside the request object too with the same motivation (although I don't remember well what was the motivation). JAR dares to drop `response_type`, so it would not be surprising to see that JAR dares to drop `scope` (including `openid`) too.

OIDC Core 1.0 requires `response_type`, but JAR allows omission of the parameter if the parameter is included in the request object.

If we applied the same logic, we would be able to state:

OIDC Core 1.0 requires `scope` (including `openid`), but JAR allows omission of the parameter if the parameter is included in the request object.

In terms of `response_type`, practically speaking, JAR has modified OIDC Core 1.0. Because JAR has already been allowed to go so far as that point, I would say it is difficult to find a convincing reason not to allow omission of `scope`.

AFAIK, in the context of OIDC Core 1.0, parameters that are required to exist outside a request object even if they are included in the request object are `client_id`, `response_type` and `scope`. Because `client_id` is mandatory in JAR (it has become mandatory after long=C2=A0discussion), discussion for the parameter is not needed. Because the community has already reached consensus that `response_type` can be omitted, discussion for the parameter is not needed, either. What I've brought here is discussion for `scope`, hopefully the last parameter that is affected by JAR.

Again, I'm on the fence on=C2=A0this topic. However, becau= se logical conclusion (at least of mine) is that JAR should allow omission of `scope` (it also should be noted that JAR's basic rule prohibits referring to request parameters outside a request object), I want to see explicit consensus if `scope` (including `openid`) outside a request object is still required even after JAR is enabled.

In short, my question is "Should `scope` be omitted?"= ; I guess that the conclusion will affect the official conformance suite.

Best Regards,
Takahiko Kawasaki
Authlete, Inc.



On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:59 AM Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com> wrote:

Hi Taka,

On 21/09/2020 20:12, Takahiko Kawasaki wrote:
If we allow JAR (JWT Secured Authorization Request) to relax the requirement of `response_type` request parameter (outside a request object) from mandatory to optional, should we relax the following requirement of `scope` request parameter stated in OIDC Core 1.0 Section 6.1, too?

----------
Even if a scope parameter is present in the Request Object value, a scope parameter MUST always be passed using the OAuth 2.0 request syntax containing the openid scope value to indicate to the underlying OAuth 2.0 logic that this is an OpenID Connect request.
----------

Otherwise, an authorization request like "client_id=3D...&request(_uri)=3D..." fails i= f the request object represents an OIDC request. An authorization request has to look like "client_id=3D...&request(_uri)=3D...&scope=3Do= penid" (`scope` including `openid` has to be given) even if the authorization server conforms to JAR and allows omission of `response_type` request parameter.

The bottom of section 5 has normative text which allows a JAR compliant server to also comply with the OIDC spec with its own style of request / request_uri parameter handling insofar as to not reject other query params (such as scope, etc). The difference is that according to JAR their values cannot be used or merged (as in OIDC). But what can be reasonably done is to detect scope=3Dopenid as you say and then switch to OIDC style request object behavior.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-o= auth-jwsreq-30#section-5

   The client MAY send the parameters included in the re=
quest object
   duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward
   compatibility etc.  However, the authorization server supporting this
   specification MUST only use the parameters included in the request
   object.

The confusion between the two specs clears when it's see= n that the request objects in OIDC and JAR have different objectives.

In OIDC the objective is to enable securing of selected parameters.

In JAR the objective is to secure the entire authz request.



I think that implementers want to know consensus on this because it affects implementations. Has this been discussed yet?

Best Regards,
Takahiko Kawasaki
Authlete, Inc.


Vladimir


_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
--000000000000ccc43305b0811229--