Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 21so40679080pgg.1 for ; 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> <9199091B-5D7F-4D66-9EC5-CB0EF2D3CF6D@lodderstedt.net> From: Brian Campbell Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:44:33 -0500 Message-ID: To: Torsten Lodderstedt Cc: oauth Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0b7a2ef34e04054bb68cbf Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:45:14 -0000 --94eb2c0b7a2ef34e04054bb68cbf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: =E2=80=9EMultiple "resource" parameters may be = used to > indicate > that the issued token is intended to be used at the multiple > resources listed.=E2=80=9C > > Can you please explain the rational in more detail? I don=E2=80=99t under= stand 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 i= n > 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 suc= h > cases? > > And it is getting even more complicated given there could also be multipl= e > 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.=E2=80=9C > > And in the end the client may add some scope values to the =E2=80=9Emeal= =E2=80=9C, which > brings us to > > =E2=80=9EEffectively, 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 >: > > 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 betwee= n > audience/resource/scope, which was a request or comment that came up duri= ng > 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: > 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=3Ddraft-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 > > > --94eb2c0b7a2ef34e04054bb68cbf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the review and question, Torsten.
The desire to support multiple audience/resource values in the r= equest came up during a review and discussion among the authors of the docu= ment when preparing the -03 draft. As I recall, it was said that both Sales= force and Microsoft had use-cases for it. I incorporated support for it int= o the draft acting in the role of editor.

From an individ= ual perspective, I tend to agree with you that allowing for multiple audien= ces/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 resou= rce 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 u= nderstand or is unwilling or unable to process. It was intended as a compro= mise, of sorts, to allow for the multiples but provide an easy out of sayin= g it can't be supported based on whatever implementation or policy of t= he AS.
=C2=A0



On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:0= 0 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> wr= ote:
= Hi Brian,

thanks for the clarification around resource, = audience and scope.=C2=A0

Here are my comment= s on the draft:

In section 2.1 it states: =E2=80= =9EMultiple "resource" parameters may be used to indicate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 that the issued token is intended to be used at the= multiple
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 resources listed.=E2=80=9C

Can you please explain the rational in more detail? I don= =E2=80=99t understand why there is a need to ask for access tokens, which a= re 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.=C2=A0

On the oth= er side, this feature increases the AS's complexity, e.g. its policy ma= y prohibit to issue tokens for multiple resources in general or the particu= lar set the client is asking for. How shall the AS handles such cases?

And it is getting even more complicated given there co= uld also be multiple audience values and the client could mix them:=C2=A0

"Multiple "audience" parameters
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 may be used to indicate that the issued token is= intended to be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 used at the multiple audienc= es listed.=C2=A0 The "audience" and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 "resource" parameters may be used together to indicate multip= le
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 target services with a mix of logical nam= es and physical
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 locations.=E2=80=9C

And in the end the client may add some scope values to the= =E2=80=9Emeal=E2=80=9C, which brings us to=C2=A0

= =E2=80=9EEffectively, the requested access rights of the
=C2=A0 = =C2=A0token are the cartesian product of all the scopes at all the target
=C2=A0 =C2=A0services."

I personally= would suggest to drop support for multiple audience and resource parameter= s and make audience and resource mutual exclusive. I think this is sufficie= nt and much easier to implement.

kind regards,
Torsten.


Am 11.01.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Brian Campbell = <bcampbe= ll@pingidentity.com>:

Draft -07 of "OAuth 2.0 Token= Exchang= e" has been published. The primary change in -07 is the addition of a=20 description of the relationship between audience/resource/scope, which=20 was a request or comment that came up during the f2f meeting in Seoul.
=
Excerpted from the Document History:

=C2=A0=C2=A0 -07

=C2= =A0=C2=A0 o=C2=A0 Fixed typo (desecration -> discretion).
=C2=A0=C2= =A0 o=C2=A0 Added an explanation of the relationship between scope, audienc= e
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 and resource in the request and added a= n "invalid_target" error
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 code e= nabling the AS to tell the client that the requested
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 audiences/resources were too broad.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Da= te: 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 director= ies.
This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol of the IETF.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authors=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Mich= ael B. Jones
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Anthony Nadalin
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Brian Campbell
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 John Bradley
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Chuck Mortimore
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : draft-iet= f-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= 31
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 := 2017-01-11

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This specification defines a protocol for an HTTP- and JSON- b= ased
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Security Token Service (STS) by defining how to request and ob= tain
=C2=A0 =C2=A0security tokens from OAuth 2.0 authorization servers, includin= g
=C2=A0 =C2=A0security tokens employing impersonation and delegation.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/d= oc/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?u= rl2=3Ddraft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
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<= br>OAuth@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth


--94eb2c0b7a2ef34e04054bb68cbf--