Re: [tram] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Williams
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:07 PM
> To: tram@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [tram] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-
> party-authz-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> I don't think OOB communication b/w the STUN and auth servers is a
> solution to the problem of wanting to provide additional details in the
> token. It defeats a large part of the purpose of moving to a token model in
> the first place, which was to avoid the need for these two servers to have to
> communicate directly with each other.

The size of the metadata will determine if in-band or OOB is required.

> 
> I agree with Martin that it would be useful to have the capability to
> communicate additional information in the token, and I don't recall that it
> was decided that the token wouldn't have this capability (unless by decided
> you mean there wasn't enough interest in the discussion). 

Yes, there was not enough interest in the discussion.

-Tiru

> I don't agree that
> this would necessarily be bad for interoperability, provided that individual
> bits of additional information are never required to be present or required
> to be understood if they are present.
> A list of TLVs at the end of the data space would not be particularly difficult
> to support.
> 
> I don't feel strongly enough about providing such a mechanism to push for
> it, but I would be supportive if someone else does.
> 
> --Brandon
> 
> On 04/14/2015 02:02 AM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Oleg Moskalenko [mailto:mom040267@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:57 AM
> >> To: Martin Thomson
> >> Cc: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); tram-chairs@ietf.org;
> >> tram@ietf.org; Brandon Williams; rlb@ipv.sx; Salz, Rich; Stephen
> >> Farrell
> >> (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie)
> >> Subject: Re: [tram] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
> >> draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-
> >> party-authz-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Martin Thomson
> >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Section 4 doesn't permit any additional information to be carried in
> >>> the token.  Therefore, the STUN/TURN server is unable to apply any
> >>> additional policies that the authorization server might impose, such
> >>> as limits on the length of the session, the number of ports
> >>> allocated, or the bandwidth that is allocated.  (Or whatever we
> >>> might later conceive of.)
> >>
> >> I believe that extra token information is a very very bad idea - it
> >> kills the whole interoperability thing in the draft. If we are adding "extra"
> >> information to the token, we can as well just kill the draft and tell
> >> the STUN server developers "do whatever you want, secure the stuff
> >> somehow, we do not care".
> >
> > It was discussed in the WG and decision was not to carry any extra token
> information so as to keep the token size small. In future an out-of-band
> communication mechanism b/w STUN and authorization server to exchange
> the token related metadata can be defined similar to the OAuth 2.0 Token
> Introspection method defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-
> introspection-07.
> >
> > -Tiru
> > _______________________________________________
> > tram mailing list
> > tram@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
> >
> 
> --
> Brandon Williams; Senior Principal Software Engineer Emerging Products
> Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram