Re: [OAUTH-WG] Clarification in Section 2.0 of draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-00

[Torsten Lodderstedt <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

we should probably adopt the wording to refer to the access grant underlying all tokens? Something like: "based on the same access grant ...".

What do you think?

regards,
Torsten.



doug foiles <[e-mail]> schrieb:

Thanks Justin.  Perhaps we can get Torsten, Stefanie, or Marius to comment on what was intended for this ... and would be much appreciated.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:

I agree with Doug and George's reading: nuking the refresh token gets rid of all access tokens associated with that refresh token's lifetime. This includes both simultaneous issuance as well as derived issuance.

 -- Justin 



On 06/11/2012 08:13 PM, doug foiles wrote: 

Hi Paul and George,

 

Even though the Access Token is short lived, I would still like to revoke it immediately if the user chooses to revoke the Refresh Token.  And I would love for the client application to only have to make one web service call to accomplish that and not one for the Refresh Token and another for the Access Token.

 

Given that we always generate a new Refresh Token value during "Token Refresh", we would never have a true parent / child relationship between a Refresh Token and Access Token.

 

Is there a case where it is NOT appropriate to revoke an "associated" Access Token when explictly revoking a Refresh Token?  I define "associated" as an Access Token generated from a Refresh Token OR generated at the same time of the Refresh Token.

 

I do see the AS challenges in trying to manage multiple simultaneous "associated" Access Tokens.  For example let's say a client generates multiple Access Tokens at the same time while generating new Refresh Token values during each "Token Refresh" operation.  However I don't really see the useful of this case.

 

Doug

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Paul Madsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi George, perhaps it depends on the reason for the refresh token being revoked. If because the user removed their consent then yes I agree that *all* tokens should be revoked

Sent from my iPhone


On 2012-06-11, at 5:10 PM, George Fletcher <[e-mail]> wrote:

Paul, 

I think I came to a different conclusion...

If I use the Resource Owner Password Credential flow and get back both an access_token and a refresh_token then I would assume that the issued access_token is tied in some way to the refresh_token. If the refresh_token is revoked, then my expectation is that the simultaneous issued access_token would also be revoked.

I read the spec as having a typo that should read...
If the processed token is a refresh token and the authorization server supports the revocation of access tokens, then the authorization server SHOULD also invalidate all access tokens issued *based on* that refresh token.Or maybe better... "invalidate all access tokens associated/tied-to that refresh token".

Now in the case that the client is retrieving a new refresh_token and access_token, then the new ones should be valid and the old ones potentially revoked.

Thanks,
George

On 6/11/12 4:09 PM, Paul Madsen wrote: 

Hi Doug, my interpretation is that 'for that refresh token' means those access tokens issued in exchange for that refresh token. 

Consequently, for the cases you cite below, the access tokens at the same time as a given refresh token need not be invalidated when that refresh token is 'processed'

I assume the justification for the rule is that an access token issued in exchange for a given refresh token may have been compromised if the refresh token had been. But there is no such causal relationship between an access token & refresh token issued at same time

paul 

On 6/11/12 3:31 PM, doug foiles wrote: 

Hi all,


I was hoping to get some clarity on a statement in section 2.0 of draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-00.


　　 If the processed token is a refresh token and the authorization
　　 server supports the revocation of access tokens, then the
　　 authorization server SHOULD also invalidate all access tokens issued
　　 for that refresh token.


My question is on the statement "access tokens issued for that refresh token".　 What does it mean to have an Access Token "issued" for a Refresh Token?　 


This specific case is clear to me.　 I am refreshing an Access Token where I keep the same Refresh Token that I used to generate the new Access Token.　 I see the new Access Token was issued for that Refresh Token.

However these two cases are a bit muddy to me.　 Let’s say I am using the "Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant" where the Access Token Response returns both an Access Token and Refresh Token.　 Would the Access Token have been issued for that Refresh Token?　 And let’s say I am refreshing an Access Token but choose to create a new Refresh Token and immediately revoke the original Refresh Token.　 Would the newly created Access Token have been issued for the original Refresh Token or the new one that was created. 

If a client would revoke a Refresh Token … I would like the Access Tokens in all of the above cases to be automatically revoked as well.　 I just want to make sure I understand the model.　 Thanks.

Doug Foiles
Intuit

_______________________________________________ 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