[GNAP] Terminology

Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> Thu, 06 August 2020 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <denis.ietf@free.fr>
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 3EB6A3A10E6 for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 04:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.673
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.673 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.212, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 hvul7Djy3v4h for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 04:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp08.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C6913A1030 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 04:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] ([90.79.51.120]) by mwinf5d15 with ME id CB022300S2bcEcA03B02Y1; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 13:00:03 +0200
X-ME-Helo: [192.168.1.11]
X-ME-Auth: ZGVuaXMucGlua2FzQG9yYW5nZS5mcg==
X-ME-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 13:00:03 +0200
X-ME-IP: 90.79.51.120
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>
References: <c5f40413-93b8-2e8c-0a3e-14a07cd27ad0@free.fr> <ECF217AE-1D67-4EAE-AE51-531F6EE6E222@mit.edu> <583aedda-ae41-1f3e-6623-671f2197614c@free.fr> <20200804185313.GT92412@kduck.mit.edu> <CAJot-L2hykst2vFxcwLn_auDMMaw7psVwsKFHKhQp9DA49ydWg@mail.gmail.com> <A4DC7B4E-FD34-454F-9396-B971CF5D57A4@mit.edu> <CAD9ie-tKEp+PV3F4p84Zbu7Kd1dQutawnzHybt8cmg-XniLYLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr>
Message-ID: <401b5e1e-7e6a-87c7-393b-51aaeed5fe0c@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:59:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD9ie-tKEp+PV3F4p84Zbu7Kd1dQutawnzHybt8cmg-XniLYLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DFF755399B049DC29CF25746"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/6tGTQRC-oEfx5NdMp10LSMgeoQk>
Subject: [GNAP] Terminology
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 11:00:08 -0000

Justin and Dick,

[Was:  "Revisiting the photo sharing example (a driving use case for the 
creation of OAuth)"]

So let us attempt to define new terms:

    *initiating application (IA)*: application by means of which a user
    initiates interactions with RS(s) and AS(s)

In the same way, we should get rid of the term Resource Owner (RO), 
which is currently defined as:

    Resource Owner (RO): entity capable of granting access to a
    protected resource

I propose to replace it with Resource Manager (RM):

    *Resource Manager (RM)* : application or user that manages an access
    decision function of a Resource Server

Denis

> 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
> ᐧ
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:20 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu 
> <mailto:jricher@mit.edu>> 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 <wparad@rhosys.ch
>>     <mailto:wparad@rhosys.ch>> 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
>>
>>     	
>>     Warren Parad
>>     Founder, CTO
>>
>>     Secure your user data and complete your authorization
>>     architecture. Implement Authress <https://bit.ly/37SSO1p>.
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:53 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu
>>     <mailto:kaduk@mit.edu>> 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
>>         Txauth@ietf.org <mailto:Txauth@ietf.org>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Txauth mailing list
>>     Txauth@ietf.org <mailto:Txauth@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>
>     -- 
>     TXAuth mailing list
>     TXAuth@ietf.org <mailto:TXAuth@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>