[GNAP] User consent

[Denis <[e-mail]>]

This is a new thread built from "Revisiting the photo sharing example (a 
driving use case for the creation of OAuth)"

Hi Dick,

> I don't see how we can technically standardize a user experience, and 
> it is not clear why a standard would be needed for interoperability.

I already wrote a proposal and made it available to the mailing list.

An access will be granted by a RS based on an mathematical expression 
which is formed using some combination of ANDand OR conditions.

Examples of combinations:

    /condition 1/AND/condition 2
    condition 1/OR /condition 2/
    (/condition 1/AND/condition 2)/OR/condition 3
    (condition 1/OR /condition 2)/AND/condition 3/

The following notation is being used for the /conditions/:

/condition x/= { AS identifier + set of attributes types }

Each RS internally constructs an /authorization table/ with the 
following content:

1°For the "authentication" operation: either FIDO U2For a mathematical 
expression using conditions;

2°For any other operation: a mathematical expression using conditions.

Given the operation selected by the client, the RS returns the 
appropriate mathematical expression and only the associated conditions
used in that mathematical expression. The User may then decide whether 
they are appropriate to him or not.

>  In many jurisdictions there are regulations regarding what 
> information needs to be conveyed to a user, and potentially a consent 
> requirement,
> for example a site explaining its use of cookies -- but I don't see 
> how IETF would play a role in that.
>
> On a related note, the browsers attempted to standardize the username 
> / password prompt, and that has been rejected by pretty much every site.
> The only site I've visited in the last decade that has used the 
> browsers' built in username / password prompt was the W3C site -- and 
> it was a frustrating
> experience since there was no button for account recovery -- it would 
> just keep popping up.

What I am proposing is unrelated to the two above cases you mention.

Denis

>
>
> ᐧ
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:29 AM Denis <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Dick,
>
>>     I think Tom's objection, and I agree with it, is that humans
>>     don't interact in bits and bytes.
>>
>>     I think it is useful to separate human interactions with software
>>     from software interactions with software.
>>     The latter we can standardize, the former we can call out as part
>>     of the overall process, but it is not something
>>     that is testable or required for interop, so I would argue human
>>     to software interactions are NOT part of the protocol.
>
>     I disagree.  A set of a choices should be presented by the RS to
>     the Client in a standardized way. The choices made by the user
>     should be locally recorded by the Client, hence the RS does not
>     need to be informed of these choices. The RS will only know
>     the end result of these choices when/if it gets back one or more
>     access tokens.
>
>     Human to software interactions should be part of the protocol.
>
>         RS to Client: a set of choices
>
>         Client to RS: Done (choices have been done by the user).
>
>     Denis
>
>
>>
>>     ᐧ
>>
>>     On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:11 AM Justin Richer <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         It’s a role fulfilled by a person, so I’m not sure where the
>>         objection you’re raising comes from.
>>
>>         Also, whatever roles we define here, whether software or
>>         human-ware, they need to be related to the protocol.
>>
>>          — Justin
>>
>>>         On Aug 13, 2020, at 10:59 AM, Tom Jones
>>>         <[e-mail]
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         I strong object to the objectification of human users. It is
>>>         way past time that the IETF becaume user oriented instead of
>>>         web service oriented.
>>>         users are human in my language.
>>>         Peace ..tom
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 4:38 PM Justin Richer
>>>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             If defined as the party operating the client software,
>>>             then the user is a role. I believe this is more accurate
>>>             and inclusive than the definition you have proposed with
>>>             the user as an entity.
>>>
>>>              - Justin
>>>             ________________________________________
>>>             From: Dick Hardt [[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>>             Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 6:21 PM
>>>             To: Francis Pouatcha
>>>             Cc: Justin Richer; Denis; Benjamin James Kaduk;
>>>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>             Subject: Re: [GNAP] [Txauth] Revisiting the photo
>>>             sharing example (a driving use case for the creation of
>>>             OAuth)
>>>
>>>             Hi Francis
>>>
>>>             The user is an entity, not a role in the protocol in how
>>>             I am defining roles, so steps (1) and (7) are confusing
>>>             to me on what is happening.
>>>
>>>             I also think that (2) could be an extension to GNAP,
>>>             rather than part of the core protocol.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:04 PM Francis Pouatcha
>>>             <[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>             In this context, I suggest we pick some words to work
>>>             with, and sharpen them as we move on, discover and map
>>>             new use cases to the protocol.
>>>
>>>             In this diagram from the original thread
>>>             (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/IaSLC_72_KimjOBJqdmQY-JOGNw/),
>>>             I replaced the words:
>>>
>>>             +-----------+      +--------------+ +----+  +----+
>>>             +---------------------+
>>>             | Requestor |      | Orchestrator | |    |  | GS |  |
>>>             Resource Controller |
>>>             |   was     |      |     was      | | RS |  | or |  |   
>>>                  was  |
>>>             |  User     |      |   Client     | |    |  | AS |  |   
>>>             Resource Owner  |
>>>             +-----------+      +--------------+ +----+  +----+
>>>             +---------------------+
>>>               |(1) ServiceRequest     |   |       |                |
>>>               |---------------------->|       |       |                |
>>>               |                       |(2)
>>>             ServiceIntent:AuthZChallenge     |
>>>               |  |<---------->|       |         |
>>>               |                       |   |       |                |
>>>               |                       |(3)
>>>             AuthZRequest(AuthZChallenge)     |
>>>               |  |------------------->|       |
>>>               |                       |   |       |(4)
>>>             ConsentRequest:Grant
>>>               |                       |   |       |<-------------->|
>>>               |                       |(5) GrantAccess(AuthZ)       
>>>                    |
>>>               |  |<-------------------|       |
>>>               |                       |   |       |                |
>>>               |                       |(6)
>>>             ServiceRequest(AuthZ):ServiceResponse
>>>               |  |<---------->|       |         |
>>>               |(7) ServiceResponse    |   |       |                |
>>>               |<----------------------|       |       |                |
>>>               +                       +   +       +                +
>>>
>>>             The purpose of the GNAP protocol is to help negotiate
>>>             access to a protected resource. It starts with a
>>>             requestor delegating activity to an orchestrator. These
>>>             are all roles, no entities. Let focus on mapping the use
>>>             cases to the protocol roles and interactions so wwe can
>>>             discover what is missing.
>>>
>>>             It seems cumbersome to use it in discussions as it is
>>>             impossible to give the word "Client" a clear definition.
>>>
>>>             We can mention in the final document, that the
>>>             "Orchestrator" (or whatever word we finally use) plays
>>>             the same role as the "Client" in oAuth2.
>>>
>>>             Best regards.
>>>             /Francis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:05 PM Dick Hardt
>>>             <[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>             I agree with Justin. Redefining well used terms will
>>>             lead to significant confusion. If we have a different
>>>             role than what we have had in the past, then that role
>>>             should have a name not being used already in OAuth or OIDC.
>>>
>>>             Given what we have learned, and my own experience
>>>             explaining what a Client is, and is not, improving the
>>>             definition for Client could prove useful. I am not
>>>             suggesting the term be redefined, but clarified.
>>>
>>>             For example, clarifying that a Client is a role an
>>>             entity plays in the protocol, and that the same entity
>>>             may play other roles at other times, or some other
>>>             language to help differentiate between "role" and "entity".
>>>
>>>             /Dick
>>>             [https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=e48e13f4-2306-4d7c-8654-d50e00dbac3a]ᐧ
>>>             <https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=e48e13f4-2306-4d7c-8654-d50e00dbac3a]%E1%90%A7>
>>>
>>>             On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:20 AM Justin Richer
>>>             <jricher@mit..edu
>>>             <mailto:jricher@mit..edu><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>             I’m in favor of coming up with a new term that’s a
>>>             better fit, but I’m not really in favor of taking an
>>>             existing term and applying a completely new definition
>>>             to it. In other words, I would sooner stop using
>>>             “client” and come up with a new, more specific and
>>>             accurate term for the role than to define “client” as
>>>             meaning something completely different. We did this in
>>>             going from OAuth 1 to OAuth 2 already, moving from the
>>>             even-more-confusing “consumer” to “client”, but OAuth 2
>>>             doesn’t use the term “consumer” at all, nor does it use
>>>             “server” on its own but instead always qualifies it with
>>>             “Authorization Server” and “Resource Server”.
>>>
>>>             GNAP can do something similar, in my opinion. But what
>>>             we can’t do is ignore the fact that GNAP is going to be
>>>             coming up in a world that is already permeated  by OAuth
>>>             2 and its terminology. We don’t have a blank slate to
>>>             work with, but neither are we bound to use the same
>>>             terms and constructs as before. It’s going to be a
>>>             delicate balance!
>>>
>>>              — Justin
>>>
>>>             On Aug 4, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Warren Parad
>>>             <[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             I think that is fundamentally part of the question:
>>>             We are clear that we are producing a protocol that is
>>>             conceptually (if not more strongly) related to OAuth
>>>             2.0, and reusing terms
>>>             from OAuth 2.0 but with different definitions may lead
>>>             to unnecessary
>>>             confusion
>>>
>>>             If we say that this document assumes OAuth2.0
>>>             terminology, then we should not change the meanings of
>>>             any definition. If we are saying this supersedes or
>>>             replaces what OAuth 2.0 creates, then we should pick the
>>>             best word for the job and ignore conflicting meanings
>>>             from OAuth 2.0. I have a lot of first hand experience of
>>>             industries "ruining words", and attempting to side-step
>>>             the problem rather than redefining the word just
>>>             confuses everyone as everyone forgets the original
>>>             meaning as new documents come out, but the confusion
>>>             with the use of a non-obvious word continues.
>>>
>>>             Food for thought.
>>>             - Warren
>>>
>>>             [https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/DNiDx1QGIrSqMPKDN1oKevxYuyVRXsqhXdfZOsW56Rf2A74mUKbAPtrJSNw4qynkSjoltWkPYdBhaZJg1BO45YOc1xs6r9KJ1fYsNHogY-nh6hjuIm9GCeBRRzrSc8kWcUSNtuA]
>>>
>>>             Warren Parad
>>>             Founder, CTO
>>>
>>>             Secure your user data and complete your authorization
>>>             architecture. Implement Authress<https://bit.
>>>             <https://bit./>.ly/37SSO1p>.
>>>
>>>
>>>             On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:53 PM Benjamin Kaduk
>>>             <[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>>             Hi Denis,
>>>
>>>             On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 11:31:34AM +0200, Denis wrote:
>>>             > Hi Justin,
>>>             >
>>>             > Since you replied in parallel, I will make a response
>>>             similar to the one
>>>             > I sent to Dick.
>>>             >
>>>             > > Hi Denis,
>>>             > >
>>>             > > I think there’s still a problem with the terminology
>>>             in use here. What
>>>             > > you describe as RS2, which might in fact be an RS
>>>             unto itself, is a
>>>             > > “Client” in OAuth parlance because it is /a client
>>>             of RS1/. What you
>>>             > > call a “client” has no analogue in the OAuth world,
>>>             but it is not at
>>>             > > all the same as an OAuth client. I appreciate your
>>>             mapping of the
>>>             > > entities below, but it makes it difficult to hold a
>>>             discussion if we
>>>             > > aren’t using the same terms.
>>>             > >
>>>             > > The good news is that this isn’t OAuth, and as a new
>>>             WG we can define
>>>             > > our own terms. The bad news is that this is really
>>>             hard to do.
>>>             > >
>>>             > > In GNAP, we shouldn’t just re-use existing terms
>>>             with new definitions,
>>>             > > but we’ve got a chance to be more precise with how
>>>             we define things.
>>>             >
>>>             > In the ISO context, each document must define its own
>>>             terminology. The
>>>             > boiler plate for RFCs does not mandate a terminology
>>>             or definitions section
>>>             > but does not prevent it either. The vocabulary is
>>>             limited and as long as
>>>             > we clearly define what our terms are meaning, we can
>>>             re-use a term already
>>>             > used in another RFC. This is also the ISO approach.
>>>
>>>             Just because we can do something does not necessarily
>>>             mean that it is a
>>>             good idea to do so.  We are clear that we are producing
>>>             a protocol that is
>>>             conceptually (if not more strongly) related to OAuth
>>>             2.0, and reusing terms
>>>             from OAuth 2.0 but with different definitions may lead
>>>             to unnecessary
>>>             confusion.  If I understand correctly, a similar
>>>             reasoning prompted Dick to
>>>             use the term "GS" in XAuth, picking a name that was not
>>>             already used in
>>>             OAuth 2.0.
>>>
>>>             -Ben
>>>
>>>             --
>>>             Txauth mailing list
>>>             [e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>             --
>>>             Txauth mailing list
>>>             [e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>
>>>             --
>>>             TXAuth mailing list
>>>             [e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>             --
>>>             TXAuth mailing list
>>>             [e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>>>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>
>>>
>>>             --
>>>             Francis Pouatcha
>>>             Co-Founder and Technical Lead
>>>             adorsys GmbH & Co. KG
>>>             https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/
>>>             -- 
>>>             TXAuth mailing list
>>>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>
>>
>
>     -- 
>     TXAuth mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>