Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05.txt

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Thu, 07 February 2013 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.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 1181D21F84F2 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:10:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uOe0ECDAq-b2 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-by2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044E521F84ED for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:10:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD005.protection.gbl (10.173.161.201) by BL2FFO11HUB015.protection.gbl (10.173.160.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.609.9; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 02:10:16 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD005.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.609.9 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 02:10:16 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.132]) by TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.25]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 02:09:55 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOBKbqNr9jMiD4C0es77r/sOJcE5htSY+AgABS7aA=
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:09:55 +0000
Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367418E35@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <20130206201534.13236.6681.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5112BE73.2070003@mitre.org>
In-Reply-To: <5112BE73.2070003@mitre.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(479174001)(377454001)(377424002)(52604002)(51704002)(13464002)(51444002)(54164002)(189002)(24454001)(199002)(33656001)(54356001)(77982001)(47446002)(59766001)(74502001)(79102001)(46102001)(65816001)(74662001)(66066001)(46406002)(47776003)(53806001)(16406001)(56816002)(80022001)(47736001)(44976002)(56776001)(54316002)(23726001)(55846006)(76482001)(15202345001)(50986001)(31966008)(47976001)(49866001)(20776003)(63696002)(4396001)(5343655001)(51856001)(50466001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB015; H:TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:ErrorRetry; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0750463DC9
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:10:21 -0000

Hi Justin,

Thanks for working to make progress on the OAuth Registration draft.  Reading through the changes, it seems to me that a number of changes were made that there wasn't yet working consensus for - in fact, some of which I don't recall being discussed by the working group at all.  These changes include:

  - Splitting the registration endpoint into multiple endpoints
  - Changing from form-encoded to JSON registration representation
  - Adding Get and Delete operations
  - Adding the Self URI concept and representation

My point is separate from whether some of those changes might be good ideas.  (Some may be.)  I would hope that in the future, before changes are made to working group drafts, that sufficient time will be first be given to the working group to adequately discuss them and come to agreement on them.

				Thank you,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Richer
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:35 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05.txt

Thanks to all of the discussion over the last few weeks and some key input from Nat Sakimura, Eve Maler, and others, I've put out a revision of the DynReg specification that is a major change from recent revisions, but actually brings it back closer to the original -01 draft. 
The "operation" parameter is now gone and there are instead several logical endpoints for different kinds of operations. These endpoints are communicated to the client through a well-defined link structure.

It basically works like this:

1. client shows up at the Client Registration Endpoint, posts a JSON object with a few bits of metadata about itself (and potentially presents an Access Token that it got from some out of band process that acts as a "class registration" or "developer key", important to several known real-world use cases)

2. client gets back a JSON object filled with whatever metadata the server has about it, including a newly-minted client_id and (possibly) client_secret. The client also gets back a registration access token and a fully qualified URL that points to the "update endpoint". This url can take any form (the server can't count on the client being able to generate it from parts), but it's recommended that it follow a REST-style URL template of the form "https://server/registration_base_url/client_id".

3. client sends updates to this update URL, authenticated by the registration access token, by PUTting a JSON object with all of its parameters. Any fields the client leaves off the JSON object, the server leaves alone. Anything with a "null" value, the server deletes the value. The server remains free to override *any* field the client requests setting a particular value for. The client is not allowed to request a particular value for the client_secret or registration_access_token, for obvious reasons -- but see part 7 below.

4. The server responds back with the current state of the client as a JSON object, including any fields the server has provisioned on the client's behalf (defaults, for instance). Any fields the server has overridden, it currently MUST respond with. So if the client asks for
"scope: A B C" and the server can only give it "scope: A B", then the server has to tell that to the client by including the field "scope: A B" in its response.

5. client can send an HTTP GET to the update URL to get its current state as a JSON object as in 4.

6. client can send an HTTP DELETE to the update URL to deprovision itself.

7. there's also a parallel endpoint for rotating the registration access token and client secret, since these are both security values that are provisioned by the server. There is some open debate of whether the client actually needs to be able to trigger this operation, or if the server should just do this as part of normal update/get requests to the update endpoint.

It's a major functionality change on the wire, and there's still sawdust on the spec language. By going with a JSON-based data model and a RESTful update protocol, we're getting away from core OAuth patterns, but I think that ultimately this can be a good thing. There have been a few proposals that would go somewhere between what OAuth does on other endpoints and what a real RESTful system would do, but I didn't see much purpose in going half way when the results would end up *more* complicated.

I request that everyone read it over to see if this will work for their use cases. The idea here remains that application protocols like OIDC and UMA would use this mechanism as-is with nearly all customizations in the client metadata table.

I hope that this all actually makes sense...

  -- Justin

On 02/06/2013 03:15 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>   This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group of the IETF.
>
> 	Title           : OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Protocol
> 	Author(s)       : Justin Richer
>                            John Bradley
>                            Michael B. Jones
>                            Maciej Machulak
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05.txt
> 	Pages           : 21
> 	Date            : 2013-02-06
>
> Abstract:
>     This specification defines an endpoint and protocol for dynamic
>     registration of OAuth Clients at an Authorization Server.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-05
>
>
> 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