Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) vs OIDC request object
Dominick Baier <dbaier@leastprivilege.com> Wed, 11 December 2019 09:01 UTC
Return-Path: <dbaier@leastprivilege.com>
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 B423B12086F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:01:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=leastprivilege-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 r9VXwgCRXEUN for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82f.google.com (mail-qt1-x82f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (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 F02561207FE for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82f.google.com with SMTP id p5so5581484qtq.12 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:01:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=leastprivilege-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=klzcoQBRoAT1ECSfv4RgD6HVjc6VFYIh2lyvOa9o+R4=; b=kmGnJVmTuVDzojqNr89k1LIfpyOB0a8GKHyzYlmcllGUvJ1Mn9+1EerQcbjDoViTtd 0qp1yq0L8rmQx3QHL+1j+k6sYpbsdz/EAHjWjZy2k0QTnEBvUKfFn6KlQ7RnvczLdk2D T/YSC+EaVLCsO+bEP3brKC6r44qgrw8XpVlll7nQe9yHy1oyynxqmRnNEZ+rFTG0cMUU gHJlHl72YWvCqto77riY1JQdkA4ZM6bOgRDcxm3P0d7eYbfLkw+LD1GkDyaqO1BLfFRu Ict6EZixCXpIAX6O3/Ziy0CXNLqRdh+E3X55Mc/sWSI6X6N5kSbNtVZ2Ctp1UpDozy64 6Byg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=klzcoQBRoAT1ECSfv4RgD6HVjc6VFYIh2lyvOa9o+R4=; b=gJyyK7qRbtPKznq/G99jTfJHJ4GiYAzjr149vijVYFMElGWNk+IqSZC8TkGITpmWvL sic5+vj06SMKhzenq+daSzWM/23n14s7dLqp9ppq099eR4zRLg29UbkdLcOp9y8xVQCj HOlOpjh4Nsddt1VkCULkNaFylneVGdTzBj8J4yfx6kWT3r6RexhjrrS1mvt3VwDL8E17 6A09rPmFHuq5qMcB22+rsu5UeUNVq6iYHghj/aR+vwAL2oS68qf5WQcqt1YHNFPFGIyn YLBuqSRbtiWhZ/lArO46T3jWplyBnRmtvfWZZtAbJboALcu9AhCqBt+rGihDbIw9+Tq8 rZQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX/4IqdQW7/bIcwmw0PfrfzzD9r8WXHKvHb8vGfDG+wTOzuzv5m FpvJaGzhH29o3qJyYWP8ORsSSb76W06twUV2l/44
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy/tCgvs7AEXiiidtkJrnvHwE1wJIjkBcgy7aF6yR9cYWjHnaPoZ3d/jTQpxQIkRMaxP6SLl3nbJp3PlqTYdZ4=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5243:: with SMTP id y3mr1721367qtn.356.1576054880656; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:01:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:01:19 -0800
From: Dominick Baier <dbaier@leastprivilege.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABzCy2BVoutsLiwTDxpOKxOOtiNv59-TKAq=V9498m4OT=79+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALAqi_-Ku6Hh3DQDXGR+83Q8jofMzVBcW=7GUnFFzsoG+Ka_1g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCRRW9oLfdmBXsccc_BVd-Ne8qOR5A4HftpSMkMt2JZLRg@mail.gmail.com> <CALAqi_9s+jXDwfb-HK+sguijR6=R6cPgJMwXhSkU52YQcEkX2A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCQZdX_DTDzcVaDJ=xaKSa0msjJh2UQvA+ZvhTeEBkTDkw@mail.gmail.com> <CABzCy2BVoutsLiwTDxpOKxOOtiNv59-TKAq=V9498m4OT=79+w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:01:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CAO7Ng+vnifiomt_bPySMCPnQwofZVpw-e-YcZ2Y+pOuesmAOVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell=40pingidentity.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
Cc: Nat Sakimura <nat.sakimura@oidf.org>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004ef1d2059969df14"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/vwIW61ZsN9tD-RM7h1SRWaGEPLY>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) vs OIDC request object
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:01:26 -0000
My preference would be that if a request object is used, all parameters must go in there a) makes the AS implementation easier b) there is really no point (IMO) to have a mixture of signed and unsigned parameters c) certain parameters should go into the RO - e.g. the code_challenge to prevent the “chosen code challenge attack” (at least that’s how I understood it) - again enforcing that makes the AS logic more complicated d) it’s a clear statement cheers ——— Dominick Baier On 11. December 2019 at 03:29:14, Nat Sakimura (sakimura@gmail.com) wrote: Correct. The WG supported the precedence approach and even merge just like OIDC as it is very useful from the implementation point of view and helps with a bunch of deployment patter. The push back came in from the Ben Campbell’s DISCUSS. See https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-jwsreq/issues/70/bc-the-current-text-actually-specifies-the I am willing to go either way as long as people agree. My slight preference is to the original approach. Best, Nat Sakimura 2019年8月29日(木) 6:56 Brian Campbell <bcampbell= 40pingidentity..com@dmarc.ietf.org <40pingidentity.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>: > FWIW, as best I can remember the change in question came as I result of directorate/IESG > review rather than a WG decision/discussion. Which is likely why you can't > find the "why" anywhere in the mailing list archive. > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:23 PM Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well it kind of blows, doesn't it? I wasn't able to find the "why" >> anywhere in the mailing list archive around the time this was changed. >> >> My take on satisfying both worlds looks like this >> >> - allow just JAR - no other params when possible. >> (which btw isn't possible to do with request_uri when enforcing >> client based uri whitelist and the jwsreq 5.2.2 shows as much) >> - enforce the "dupe behaviours" defined in OIDC (if response_type or >> client_id is in request object it must either be missing or the same in >> regular request). >> - allows merging request object and regular parameters with request >> object taking precedence since it is a very useful feature when having >> pre-signed request object that's not one time use and clients using it wish >> to vary state/nonce per-request. >> >> I wish the group reconsidered making this breaking change from OIDC's >> take on request objects - allow combination of parameters from the request >> object with ones from regular parameters (if not present in request object). >> >> S pozdravem, >> *Filip Skokan* >> >> >> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:02, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> >> wrote: >> > Filip, for better or worse, I believe your assessment of the situation is >>> correct. I know of one AS that didn't choose which of the two to follow but >>> rather implemented a bit of a hybrid where it basically ignores everything >>> outside of the request object per JAR but also checks for and enforces the >>> presence and value of the few regular parameters (client_id, response_type) >>> that OIDC mandates. >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:47 AM Filip Skokan <panva.ip@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello everyone, >>>> >>>> in an earlier thread I've posed the following question that might have >>>> gotten missed, this might have consequences for the existing >>>> implementations of Request Objects in OIDC implementations - its making >>>> pure JAR requests incompatible with OIDC Core implementations. >>>> >>>> draft 14 of jwsreq (JAR) introduced this language >>>> >>>> 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. * >>>> >>>> >>>> Server MUST only use the parameters in the Request Object even if the >>>>> same parameter is provided in the query parameter. The Authorization >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. * >>>> >>>> >>>> Nat, John, everyone - *does this mean a JAR compliant AS ignores >>>> everything outside of the request object while OIDC Request Object one >>>> merges the two with the ones in the request object being used over ones >>>> that are sent in clear?* The OIDC language also includes sections >>>> which make sure that some required arguments are still passed outside of >>>> the request object with the same value to make sure the request is "valid" >>>> OAuth 2.0 request (client_id, response_type), something which an example in >>>> the JAR spec does not do. Not having this language means that existing >>>> authorization request pipelines can't simply be extended with e.g. a >>>> middleware, they need to branch their codepaths. >>>> >>>> Is an AS required to choose which of the two it follows? >>>> >>>> Thank you for clarifying this in advance. I think if either the >>>> behaviour is the same as in OIDC or different this should be called out in >>>> the language to avoid confusion, especially since this already exists in >>>> OIDC and likely isn't going to be read in isolation, especially because the >>>> Request Object is even called out to be already in place in OIDC in the JAR >>>> draft. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> *Filip* >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> >>> >>> * 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.* >> >> > * 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.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) Chairman, OpenID Foundation http://nat.sakimura.org/ @_nat_en _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … John Bradley
- [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR… Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Takahiko Kawasaki
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Dominick Baier
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Takahiko Kawasaki
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Takahiko Kawasaki
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … n-sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Takahiko Kawasaki
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Takahiko Kawasaki
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Neil Madden
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Dominick Baier
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Neil Madden
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Neil Madden
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Neil Madden
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Joseph Heenan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Richard Backman, Annabelle
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Jim Manico
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Richard Backman, Annabelle
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Joseph Heenan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Authori… Neil Madden
- [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Author… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Au… Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Joseph Heenan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Re: JWT Secured Au… Filip Skokan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request … Rob Otto