Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Mon, 27 March 2017 13:45 UTC
Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.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 3F925129422 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 06:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pingidentity.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 aa-w5U_qvkIP for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 06:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x229.google.com (mail-pg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (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 315AE12778E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 21so40679080pgg.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=gmail; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WK8pcEazT2S8RI74Y4O+BPrB5/t62sZHkuI4eA6+L/4=; b=LTmncJ9MLjEESlBQuHvi5T+YOJhGbx8Lq2jI/h2qJRN1duzDPJuc0asCG2DDbJ/qUs VWx6PNoII+tzTtWxCqSK2AJUBuID00hey0oOKFWBv7Jf/4JlGQS8q3V+9Z5mGpRkU1FQ PMTmwssw+N4jkbfSjYxFWYGaQkWohnYJ3vmm0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WK8pcEazT2S8RI74Y4O+BPrB5/t62sZHkuI4eA6+L/4=; b=FeupEH6/ZfYhTVw6nGlyocdhPvNmQd9ESMRSsYvmqS9ZDRpjZRLhrkTJ4YyYdPsPYn rBCcohrZ6kwTVVXhGg78w9XpOxWHEjvt7D//PDKjNJukRH0bXxk1FNvUDDg2PSUw9D2g V/6/BDeIm7oTpoGegoKh1hvy/xF8PwW6bbtlOzb3Gxgmz/TcEQt7lRoWc2ZSOQ5wzFK6 AvCbEXgtr3igiKhf2H045dus5jDeO5ydcXH5u92Wy3LOT88Vc/AjxkAIlh8midpDBNYb jC9dVQteqkRpOO1YVJSwqrVmpUWbLISflWeAwy4dwhJfb68ycdZcZQV5sZgD3MtsUZZF YKdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H29VxIUV82obbwMwadvLca9pMuQ9NUVMfcyN9Kj/ba5UxBhLZv1ndBexuVYOrf1cGg5yIVAbjComXoOPbLK
X-Received: by 10.98.72.66 with SMTP id v63mr25510841pfa.8.1490622304431; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 06:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.170.138 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 06:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9199091B-5D7F-4D66-9EC5-CB0EF2D3CF6D@lodderstedt.net>
References: <148416124213.8244.5842562779051799977.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+k3eCTE1NM90QcZRFR0jATCqdeJWyTRUb6Ryp52n9FRg6aGpA@mail.gmail.com> <9199091B-5D7F-4D66-9EC5-CB0EF2D3CF6D@lodderstedt.net>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:44:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCTjmifjsbec80vGTE5Hw4ws7oARuaatDk4RYOLK26-87Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0b7a2ef34e04054bb68cbf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/xXFby2tMe984i2wbwOdEr4Xjk2o>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:45:14 -0000
Thanks for the review and question, Torsten. The desire to support multiple audience/resource values in the request came up during a review and discussion among the authors of the document when preparing the -03 draft. As I recall, it was said that both Salesforce and Microsoft had use-cases for it. I incorporated support for it into the draft acting in the role of editor. >From an individual perspective, I tend to agree with you that allowing for multiple audiences/resources adds a lot of complexity that's like not needed in many (or most) cases. And I would personally be open to making audience and resource mutual exclusive and single valued. A question for the WG I suppose. The "invalid_target" error code that was added in -07 was intended to give the AS a standard way to deal with the complexity and reject request with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is unwilling or unable to process. It was intended as a compromise, of sorts, to allow for the multiples but provide an easy out of saying it can't be supported based on whatever implementation or policy of the AS. On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt < torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > thanks for the clarification around resource, audience and scope. > > Here are my comments on the draft: > > In section 2.1 it states: „Multiple "resource" parameters may be used to > indicate > that the issued token is intended to be used at the multiple > resources listed.“ > > Can you please explain the rational in more detail? I don’t understand why > there is a need to ask for access tokens, which are good for multiple > resources at once. This is a request type more or less exclusively used in > server to server scenarios, right? So the only reason I can think of is > call reduction. > > On the other side, this feature increases the AS's complexity, e.g. its > policy may prohibit to issue tokens for multiple resources in general or > the particular set the client is asking for. How shall the AS handles such > cases? > > And it is getting even more complicated given there could also be multiple > audience values and the client could mix them: > > "Multiple "audience" parameters > may be used to indicate that the issued token is intended to be > used at the multiple audiences listed. The "audience" and > "resource" parameters may be used together to indicate multiple > target services with a mix of logical names and physical > locations.“ > > And in the end the client may add some scope values to the „meal“, which > brings us to > > „Effectively, the requested access rights of the > token are the cartesian product of all the scopes at all the target > services." > > I personally would suggest to drop support for multiple audience and > resource parameters and make audience and resource mutual exclusive. I > think this is sufficient and much easier to implement. > > kind regards, > Torsten. > > > Am 11.01.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com > >: > > Draft -07 of "OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange" has been published. The primary > change in -07 is the addition of a description of the relationship between > audience/resource/scope, which was a request or comment that came up during > the f2f meeting in Seoul. > > Excerpted from the Document History: > > -07 > > o Fixed typo (desecration -> discretion). > o Added an explanation of the relationship between scope, audience > and resource in the request and added an "invalid_target" error > code enabling the AS to tell the client that the requested > audiences/resources were too broad. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> > Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:00 PM > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol of the IETF. > > Title : OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange > Authors : Michael B. Jones > Anthony Nadalin > Brian Campbell > John Bradley > Chuck Mortimore > Filename : draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt > Pages : 31 > Date : 2017-01-11 > > Abstract: > This specification defines a protocol for an HTTP- and JSON- based > Security Token Service (STS) by defining how to request and obtain > security tokens from OAuth 2.0 authorization servers, including > security tokens employing impersonation and delegation. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > >
- [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exc… internet-drafts
- [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-toke… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell