Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protocol-00
Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Tue, 17 November 2020 17:59 UTC
Return-Path: <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2383A0E8D for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:59:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4Ar0F0u7bEpC for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:59:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (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 74AFF3A101A for <txauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:59:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id l11so19281412lfg.0 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:59:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fWTdSeHOY4P+NSCibGlSoZBc1jdb+hRnbUbcfNoUsQw=; b=NDO4HH16Lo/39Z+aJGCQYaiv4k5ii+4aeDqv9TDVmbk5f3brMYrIPKeuwZhtGtBUSs HC0IQFSrj4F0etlFm89xRZwFK7cC4VGDeNi0Q2zXqU99y8L6+VHAxeAgHSgOAd0bIFi/ /hzq33hmgYhHxdc3lpCNW9lW+z59zKxM/eFXF4iUQTuv708UWBI1rC9+3Akg7qkp5h8s onJ4jexia7JLyZOCxdEek/Moq0mzsKYAG2wAi3FDA/Dzz20sZftw/wufUdXbGQtr74qR X/TjM+NOH4cnB2UdXuVR/6fzIXwG5yYJ8ns8TXXkaCtGb1Eni02lb22eYC8/GUAhnOJF 6jSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fWTdSeHOY4P+NSCibGlSoZBc1jdb+hRnbUbcfNoUsQw=; b=GuKZ6ojuOeYOHjB3DebWYx1fwNDTj4KJpH+LkIxnByx8eKtVuYme7RJUukQIlkC+8N gDsUvcScXCSEM9uWZeb6/UG21aQIKm8/mFHChBF6Aor/T6RHZ6dl06lAPtLyDQTfCJGB so+ZBXQFGqwOaHTsl1j9b8OYzex7A22RE0w9WfPaQnlougibrCcPmTx2g+Tu3DD8xsuS NoapJzsYW+ypHHjnMdVKCC2ffA0fxhKHyFBdcwpqKKytRxGn+VwxcmxjmI+84tJU3Eof ocxpnuj5vbrdzWL9oLZCAif2J55me75I4nkQIK53Wdkv/GpkDw8md4rem0NUGDu7noiR 4hXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530KWxQudxSVnnVoKWcCIaBMZmoeOVet5JoLntARQObCrumqTZdl GiFijlavDaIWHl1hcYPsaH9yCxfKaRkUV56y6mo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyKzS3bCTsEYdB5/WkxvqIXimpFo/lOFJc/2n+0q+UdFBjQicVCeSlthO5C37ISitcFRNwMoPtKaFNULkc5CV0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:6c5:: with SMTP id u5mr2309170lff.316.1605635963306; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:59:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160433257633.23038.15047041472414640530@ietfa.amsl.com> <AB11DC08-C6ED-4045-A8F5-872AD263035D@mit.edu> <FR2P281MB01063C2EA739E892B549611D8D110@FR2P281MB0106.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAM8feuQcCdQFGUKy-ou7H3Ta38yyN1LR+0XJd9WophRMRdPDEA@mail.gmail.com> <FR2P281MB0106C83420ED3F8DF2723BFD8DE30@FR2P281MB0106.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <5b8ac79b-0c0e-18e9-9f80-b5d79e9ae59b@free.fr> <CAM8feuQ346w9EL=-qpJRmMOO_YUp_14gShxcro+pVxnfXTvkzw@mail.gmail.com> <5E214281-2974-4632-AB74-4E068B7EE66B@mit.edu> <CAK2Cwb5ACMxjiph796Lq1U3FZ6Tm_2TCmsKTJZn8Fgc0rzEgZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK2Cwb5ACMxjiph796Lq1U3FZ6Tm_2TCmsKTJZn8Fgc0rzEgZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 09:58:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD9ie-vDS9-Cc=cVRc_SDg7z6KxMqySdcfv3ZPSjAzHorZP7UQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>, Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>, Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr>, GNAP Mailing List <txauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003b46a305b45141bd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/5DiV-LZjk4rI22e9QRpjb5hHfog>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protocol-00
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: GNAP <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:59:29 -0000
Hi Tom I watched your video (I watched at 2X speed) Looks like the employment website app that is using localhost:8765 to communicate with the wallet. Am I correct? /Dick ᐧ On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:46 AM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, here's a demo. Note that in this case the AS is not online all of > the time, so it is really implicit flow and the OIDC id-token comes from > the siop device directly. > (whether this is front-channel or back channel is no longer an interesting > question.) > Now if an always-on AS is required, that is possible, but probably beyond > the scope of this effort and would require something like an > agent-in-the-sky (with diamonds). > here is the link to the 9 min video https://youtu.be/Tq4hw7X5SW0 > <https://urldefense.us/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_Tq4hw7X5SW0&d=DwMFaQ&c=2plI3hXH8ww3j2g8pV19QHIf4SmK_I-Eol_p9P0CttE&r=D5lnfoa2MVZWELqVbbz71ooelbP7rVGCjGDSBNvUpYQ&m=ixsudGSr_dhG-SLiatb4Sz9FWslmywnYyZAOLgZxhl8&s=jdLLy0G1JTQCAOBZ6PeUgI0kiCtVJXrru0VToYWlNZ8&e=> > Peace ..tom > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:20 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote: > >> Ultimately, in most situations like these in the real world, the hurdle >> isn’t technical compatibility so much as it is trust compatibility. The RP >> (client) needs to have some incentive to trust the assertions and identity >> information that’s coming from the AS. The same is true for an RS trusting >> tokens from the AS. The hard question is less “how” to do that (which SSI >> answers), but more “why” to do that (which SSI doesn’t answer very well, >> because it’s a hard question). >> >> Still: it’s definitely a question about how to support this “AS on >> device” element. We’ve got the start of it more than OAuth2/OIDC have by >> allowing the bootstrap of the process from a starting call: the interaction >> and continuation URIs handed back by the AS don’t need to be the same URIs >> that the client starts with, so just like SIOP the process can start in >> HTTP and potentially move to other communication channels. A major >> difference is that we aren’t dependent on the assumption that the user will >> always be in a browser at some stage, and so the whole raft of >> front-channel messages that SIOP relies on doesn’t fly. That said, we’ve >> got an opportunity to more explicitly open up alternative communication >> channels here, and that’s something I’d like to see engineered, even if >> it’s an extension. I’d love to see a concrete proposal as to how that would >> work over specific protocols, starting with what we’ve got today. >> >> — Justin >> >> On Nov 17, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Denis, hi Francis, >> >> At some point integration with SSI (on the authentication side) will >> probably occur, including amongst other possibilities SIOP (since they work >> with OpenID a part of the work will probably be made easier). >> >> That being said, Denis is right. It's not an AS. Technically it's >> entirely possible to rely on a decentralized wallet (for instance on your >> phone) and a centralized AS. I know of a few studies on how to decentralize >> the AS itself (for instance >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-decentralized-02). >> Maybe it exists, but I'm still looking for real scenarios (or even >> architectures) where an AS is deployed directly on a phone, and under the >> sole authority of the RO, while being compatible with the rest of the >> world. >> >> Cheers, >> Fabien >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:45 PM Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> wrote: >> >>> Hello Francis, >>> >>> See two comments in line. >>> >>> >>> B) Current Document >>> >>> Roles description shall not hold any assumption on the physical >>> structure of the party fulfilling the roles. >>> [FI] not sure what you mean >>> >>> [FP] for example, we assume the AS is a server! In most SSI based use >>> cases, the AS will be running on the user device. See SIOP ( >>> https://identity.foundation/did-siop/). >>> >>> I browsed through the two drafts, i.e. : >>> >>> - Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 Core architecture, data >>> model, and representations W3C Working Draft 08 November 2020 >>> - Self-Issued OpenID Connect Provider DID Profile v0.1. DIF Working >>> Group Draft >>> >>> At no place within these two documents, it is possible to imagine that >>> "the AS will be running on the user device". >>> >>> From section 3 of the DIF Working Group Draft: >>> >>> "Unlike the OIDC Authorization Code Flow as per [OIDC.Core], the >>> SIOP will not return an access token to the RP". >>> >>> An Identity Wallet is not an AS. >>> >>> >>> Roles: >>> -> grant endpoint of the AS: Why is this a post request? This eliminates >>> the chance of having user device hosted AS (no server). >>> [FI] what would you propose instead? >>> Would also be interested to understand better the deployment model when >>> there is no server. That's something that was discussed several times but >>> I'm still missing the underlying architecture and use case. >>> >>> [FP] See above (SIOP). There will be a lot of identity wallets operated >>> on end user device. >>> >>> See the above comment. Please, do not confuse an Identity Wallet with an >>> Authentication Server (AS). >>> >>> Denis >>> >>> >>> -> Resource Owner (RO) : Authorizes the request? Does it authorize the >>> request or the access to a resource? >>> [FI] yes, we should make the wording clearer >>> >>> Missing Section Interactions: >>> --> This section shall introduce the notion of interaction before we >>> start listing interaction types. >>> [FI] yes >>> >>> Interaction Types: >>> --> I prefer a classification with Redirect, Decoupled and Embedded is. >>> In the draft, we have one redirect and 2 decouple interactions and nothing >>> else. >>> [FI] this should be handled as a specific discussion item. As a >>> reminder, how would you define embedded? >>> >>> In practice there's at least these modes: >>> - redirect and redirect back >>> - redirect to different browser or device >>> - user code >>> - CIBA >>> >>> [FP] This classification is limited. >>> >>> - Redirect: same device, same or different user agents (browser, >>> mobile app, desktop app, ...) >>> - Decoupled: different devices >>> - Embedded : RC carries RO authorization to AS >>> >>> >>> >>> Resource Access Request vs. Resource Request >>> --> Both are mixed up. No clarification of the context of each section. >>> [FI] could you clarify what you'd expect. Btw on this topic, there's a >>> more general discussion on whether we should make a distinction or not. >>> >>> [FP]: Here: >>> >>> - Resource Access Request: Requesting Access to a resource. Response >>> is an access token (or any type of grant) >>> - Resource Request: Request the resource. Response is the resource >>> (or a corresponding execution) >>> >>> >>> Token Content Negotiation >>> --> Not expressed as such. This is central to GNAP and not represented >>> enough in the document. >>> [FI] right. This should be a specific discussion item. >>> >>> Requesting "User" Information >>> we identify two types of users: RQ and RO. It will be better not to >>> refer to a user in this draft, but either to a RQ or an RO. >>> [FI] yes that would avoid potential misunderstandings. Although in the >>> end, people will translate RQ into user or end-user most of the time. Cf in >>> definition, currently we have Requesting Party (RQ, aka "user") >>> >>> >>> Interaction Again >>> -> For each interaction type, we will have to describe the protocol flow >>> and the nature and behavior of involved Roles (Parties), Elements, Requests. >>> [FI] yes >>> >>> >>> [FP] Will these and into tickets? >>> >>> Best regards. >>> /Francis >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> TXAuth mailing list >>> TXAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth >>> >> -- >> TXAuth mailing list >> TXAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth >> >> >> -- >> TXAuth mailing list >> TXAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth >> > -- > TXAuth mailing list > TXAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth >
- [GNAP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-gnap-core-protocol-… internet-drafts
- Re: [GNAP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-gnap-core-proto… Justin Richer
- [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protocol-00 Francis Pouatcha
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Francis Pouatcha
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Denis
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Dick Hardt
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Dick Hardt
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Dick Hardt
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Dick Hardt
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Francis Pouatcha
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Francis Pouatcha
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Francis Pouatcha
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Tom Jones
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Review of draft-ietf-gnap-core-protoco… Fabien Imbault