Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01.txt

[George Fletcher <[e-mail]>]

That makes sense as well:)

Hopefully some others will chime in as I think this is an area that 
could use some "best practice" guidelines.

Thanks,
George

On 1/10/13 11:53 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
> I'm leaning towards 1 because the client is more the "authorized 
> presenter" of the token, not its audience.
>
>  -- Justin
>
> On 01/10/2013 11:52 AM, George Fletcher wrote:
>> So in the default case I see two options for an AS that wants to 
>> implement this endpoint...
>>
>> 1. Omit 'audience' from the response: The rationale here is that 
>> there really isn't an explicit audience and what clients need to 
>> protect against things like "confused deputy" is the client_id which 
>> is already one of the response fields.
>>
>> 2. Make the 'audience' value the same as the 'client_id' value: The 
>> rationale here is that the "audience" of the token is the entity for 
>> which the token was minted which in the default OAuth2 case is the 
>> client_id.
>>
>> Any thoughts as to which is the best option? For now I'm going with 
>> option 2.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> George
>>
>> On 1/10/13 9:18 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
>>> In traditional OAuth, there really isn't a baked-in notion of 
>>> 'audience' since the AS<->PR connection is completely out of scope. 
>>> However, in practice, when you've got more than one PR per AS, 
>>> you'll have some notion of 'audience'. It's definitely possible to 
>>> handle this with 'scope', especially if you want the client to have 
>>> a say in the matter. But since you could have your scopes and 
>>> audiences defined independently (one scope across several audiences, 
>>> one audience with many scopes, and any other combination thereof) I 
>>> think it makes sense to at least define a place for the AS to 
>>> express this back to the PR. JWT has the exact same claim for the 
>>> exact same reason.
>>>
>>> As George points out below, this also really comes into play in the 
>>> chaining case, where you've got one PR calling another PR and you 
>>> need to keep things straight in a large backend.
>>>
>>> So while I agree it'd be better if OAuth had an 'audience' concept 
>>> all the way through, I don't think it should be precluded from the 
>>> introspection response just because it doesn't.
>>>
>>>  -- Justin
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/09/2013 04:47 PM, George Fletcher wrote:
>>>> I had the same confusion about "what is 'audience' in OAuth?" today 
>>>> working on a completely different project.
>>>>
>>>> I think for the default OAuth2 deployment, scopes take the place of 
>>>> audience because the scopes identify the authorization grant(s) at 
>>>> the resource servers affiliated with the Authorization Server. The 
>>>> client can present the token to any resource server and if the 
>>>> necessary authorization grant(s) are present, the protected 
>>>> resource is returned. The client doesn't have to explicitly call 
>>>> out that it is going to present the token to the 'mail service', it 
>>>> just needs to ask for the 'readMail' scope.
>>>>
>>>> So, in regards to an AS implementation of the introspection 
>>>> endpoint, what are the expectations for how the AS fills in the 
>>>> 'audience' field. Should the AS not return the field if there is no 
>>>> audience? Should the AS return "itself" as the audience? If a token 
>>>> has scopes of 'readMail writeMail readBuddyList sendIM' then what 
>>>> is the correct 'audience' of the token? Should it be an array of 
>>>> the resource servers that depend on those scopes?
>>>>
>>>> I can see value in the chaining scenario of a client asking the AS 
>>>> for a token that it will give to another party to present and 
>>>> storing that intermediate party in the token. But for the default 
>>>> OAuth2 case, should audience be omitted? or be the same value as 
>>>> 'client_id'?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> On 1/9/13 3:15 PM, Richer, Justin P. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt 
>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Justin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 09.01.2013 um 20:35 schrieb Justin Richer <[e-mail] 
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the review, answers inline:
>>>>>>>> why is there a need for both scope and audience? I would assume 
>>>>>>>> the scope of the authorization request is typically turned into 
>>>>>>>> an audience of an access token.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can have an audience of a single server that has multiple 
>>>>>>> scopes, or a single scope that's across multiple servers. Scope 
>>>>>>> is an explicit construct in OAuth2, and while it is sometimes 
>>>>>>> used for audience restriction purposes, they really are 
>>>>>>> independent. Note that both of these are optional in the 
>>>>>>> response -- if the AS has no notion of audience restriction in 
>>>>>>> its stored token metadata, then it just doesn't return the 
>>>>>>> "audience" field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are making an interesting point here. To differentiate the 
>>>>>> resource server and the permissions of a particular at this 
>>>>>> server makes a lot of sense. BUT: the authorization request does 
>>>>>> not allow the client to specify both in separate parameters. 
>>>>>> Instead both must be folded into a single "scope" parameter. If I 
>>>>>> got your example correctly, the scope of the request would be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> scope=myserver:read
>>>>>>
>>>>>> whereas the results of the introspection would be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> scope=read
>>>>>> audience=myserver
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's probably the different semantics of scope that confused me.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, sorry if I was unclear: scope is scope, no different 
>>>>> semantics. In this example case, you'd ask for scope=myserver:read 
>>>>> and get back scope=myserver:read. I'm not suggesting that these be 
>>>>> split up. Since the AS in this case knows that there's an 
>>>>> audience, so it can return audience=myserver as well. The fact 
>>>>> that it knows this through the scope mechanism is entirely 
>>>>> system-dependent.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that the lack of a method for specifying audience does 
>>>>> make returning this field a little odd for simple OAuth 
>>>>> deployments, but since audience restriction is a big part of 
>>>>> clustered and enterprise deployments (in my personal experience), 
>>>>> then it's something very useful to have the server return.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Generally, wouldn't it be simpler (spec-wise) to just return a 
>>>>>>>> JWT instead of inventing another set of JSON elements?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would be the utility in returning a JWT? The RS/client 
>>>>>>> making the call isn't going to take these results and present 
>>>>>>> them elsewhere, so I don't want to give the impression that it's 
>>>>>>> a token. (This, incidentally, is one of the main problems I have 
>>>>>>> with the Ping introspection approach, which uses the Token 
>>>>>>> Endpoint and invents a "token type" as its return value.) Also, 
>>>>>>> the resource server would have to parse the JWT instead of raw 
>>>>>>> JSON, the latter of which is easier and far more common. 
>>>>>>> Besides, I'd have to invent new claims for things like "valid" 
>>>>>>> and "scopes" and what not, so I'd be extending JWT anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So while I think it's far preferable to use an actual JSON 
>>>>>>> object, I'd be fine with re-using JWT claim names in the 
>>>>>>> response if people prefer that. I tried to just use the expanded 
>>>>>>> text since size constraints are not an issue outside of a JWT, 
>>>>>>> so "issued_at" instead of "iat".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally, note that this is *not* the same as the old OIDC 
>>>>>>> CheckId endpoint which merely parsed and unwrapped the data 
>>>>>>> inside the token itself. This mechanism works just as well with 
>>>>>>> an unstructured token as input since the AS can store all of the 
>>>>>>> token's metadata, like expiration, separately and use the 
>>>>>>> token's value as a lookup key.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I probably didn't describe well what I meant. I would suggest to 
>>>>>> return a JWT claim set from the introspection endpoint. That way 
>>>>>> one could use the same claims (e.g. iat instead of issued_at) for 
>>>>>> structured and handle-based tokens. So the logic operating on the 
>>>>>> token data could be the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I follow you now. I'd be fine with re-using the JWT claim 
>>>>> names and extending the namespace with the OAuth-specific 
>>>>> parameters, like scope, that make sense here.
>>>>>
>>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> Torsten.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 09.01.2013 um 20:10 schrieb Justin Richer <[e-mail] 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Updated the introspection draft with feedback from the UMA WG, 
>>>>>>>>> who have incorporated it into their latest revision of UMA.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like this document to become a working group item.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  -- Justin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>> Subject: 	New Version Notification for 
>>>>>>>>> draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01.txt
>>>>>>>>> Date: 	Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:48:47 -0800
>>>>>>>>> From: 	<[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> To: 	<[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01.txt
>>>>>>>>> has been successfully submitted by Justin Richer and posted to the
>>>>>>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Filename:	 draft-richer-oauth-introspection
>>>>>>>>> Revision:	 01
>>>>>>>>> Title:		 OAuth Token Introspection
>>>>>>>>> Creation date:	 2013-01-08
>>>>>>>>> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
>>>>>>>>> Number of pages: 6
>>>>>>>>> URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01.txt
>>>>>>>>> Status:http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection
>>>>>>>>> Htmlized:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01
>>>>>>>>> Diff:http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-richer-oauth-introspection-01
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>>>     This specification defines a method for a client or protected
>>>>>>>>>     resource to query an OAuth authorization server to determine meta-
>>>>>>>>>     information about an OAuth token.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                                                                                    
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>
>>
>