Re: [OAUTH-WG] RAR WGLC comment

I support such change.

Odesláno z iPhonu

> 19. 6. 2021 v 15:36, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten=40lodderstedt.net@dmarc.ietf.org>:
> 
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> the idea was to use resource indicators as convenient short cut to support audience restricted access tokens. However, I agree this can be achieved by specifying authorization details in the token request as well.
> 
> So I‘m fine with dropping resource indicators for RAR at all. This means RAR on one hand and scopes + resource indicators on the other hand are clearly decoupled and independent.
> 
> best regards,
> Torsten.
> 
>>> Am 18.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb Brian Campbell <bcampbell=40pingidentity.com@dmarc.ietf.org>:
>>> 
>> 
>> In my reading and understanding of the text and intent, the content and meaning of a particular authorization details object are fully governed by its "type". And while the draft provides a set of common data elements intended to be usable across different types (locations, actions, datatypes, identifier, privileges) a specific type is free to define whatever suits its needs. A type definition may or may not involve those common elements and could even use the same name(s) with different meaning or structure. 
>> 
>> So, while I understand the motivation behind the RFC8707 resource parameter being usable in a token request to make the AS filter, the included authorization details of the resultant token based on the "locations" element[1], I'm a bit concerned about a layering problem here. The authorization details objects of the grant might not contain a "locations" element or might have one with a different meaning or structure.  
>> 
>> The draft also describes using the authorization_details token request parameter to specify the authorization details a client wants the AS to assign to a particular access token[2]. So the problematic resource parameter behaviour is also kind of redundant. I think maybe it should be removed.
>> 
>> [*] described in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html#section-6.2 and mentioned at https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html#section-1-8 and in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html#section-7-1
>> 
>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html#name-token-request
>> 
>> 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.google.com/url?q=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth&source=gmail-imap&ust=1624644831000000&usg=AOvVaw1Ol8hiDotFufYe9jQCTi1m
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth