[Txauth] Client Registration (Was: Key handle vs client id & handle

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Tue, 14 July 2020 20:00 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 E8CDB3A0ACB for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 pdT9f63H1Fk9 for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com (mail-wr1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (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 BD74A3A0AC3 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id q5so24456067wru.6 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
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=/BbJsO5YBaM3o/G0+7AVcWGY59c67z2FUv5+vOTFdGk=; b=XMUfiWxCKQNt2/RPICVUMUNlfUVLGJwONBgNbZwNqAFp5AJXrQpnjNO6OaXeRIilap KpbA4iViuAQR/IlctqaZINOP1BQCKUUX5nQI3VK1bQhBhls8vo3xMcBIBNTRKVq0lgS9 2GUDkL/V9RGqVkKbGaWR+CWEkI6cpRbVEa0SIKN+8IfOcV3Uj6IV9o3j4NDLp9jcdSjw rqSIj8bxWI0jnytwdT9h4yoiCqMSI45hCb8qxyOVqo8QQZA+7QzoAxim1JlOsd53P6ML QIdGfbG0SMdz4pVd56C3WKFeUEtQ/riqArvmXYEj35BfqRQM+8dc/qLrLLJa2uYZI/99 uN0g==
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=/BbJsO5YBaM3o/G0+7AVcWGY59c67z2FUv5+vOTFdGk=; b=f23BxP97GEjWQCdUONy/atCxXVIrgBTpjMoy2NbbT4Lu6LE6hC6jlOeBEjh+L52qmD 0AJZs+CQ+VNHK+EupZU0lDbuk1fVtP7ZQ6/AjArinoGcoT9sn2Majl+XV3jXfKwRGPUz GT8nMbnSsNGYqcHdM2zO+C07rKBTWUwWAkNugDe7cGkkGDu/O9W/Q9ZI398LjRHrmjvE xn0yn0JnaVcT6jGZD1hniAadJzQMC+jzGbVZcMN62uc0S8XwtgL7RRPyBWEQdayY4RHy +4GJI2f+ezgGPi8DVM5W27EIZT01jwANtD+BnRXtkRQkgUe2IRdUviU+MNBfNG/QvZeD nWMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533MloUzrCIc7NIyxW4f31OkWyo1nt3LtgIqQDQYg8wmbc1/xrsi DjRLzyuvlxZzxXJGiR7N/eWQeMRPwjeQd3BfrwGfMEtK
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGz1SVOwvO83+IuKCuq5jkM4pUlQdz55nhasTVLtEwuGFSN99spVJEcvn1IXu3f/pTZBhJ2pOirIV6tHoY2mo=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9611:: with SMTP id v17mr3151091ljh.110.1594752833286; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <29AAF03B-12B6-4E61-9BF4-EF951506931B@securekey.com>
In-Reply-To: <29AAF03B-12B6-4E61-9BF4-EF951506931B@securekey.com>
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:53:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD9ie-u8hT42pP0t2i=uuTt80fZA6ad03qGJnpWP79rGUcxR1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Varley <mike.varley@securekey.com>
Cc: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000021f7af05aa6b5483"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/8EyaKBm5otYM5F3lK8kNCBD3qGQ>
Subject: [Txauth] Client Registration (Was: Key handle vs client id & handle
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 20:00:37 -0000

(changing subject to reflect topic)

In my opinion, client registration is in scope.

In both XYZ and XAuth, the client can provide some information about
itself, and get back an ID it can use in subsequent calls. No one has said
that should NOT be in scope so far.

Myself, I do support adding other mechanisms for a Client to share
information about itself with an AS such as software statements, or a URI
that binds a URI to information retrieved from that URI, and to the Client.

I agree that we don't want to define software statements per se, but we
should refer to some standards so that interop between clients and ASs.

/Dick

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:54 AM Mike Varley <mike.varley@securekey.com>
wrote:

> Is client registration in scope for the protocol?
>
>
>
> A generic way of handling clients (via ID or Handle or Key or whatever) is
> to have processing rule on the AS such as “if the AS recognizes the client
> ID (and authentication of that client ID) then it may process the request
> on behalf of that client. If the AS does not recognize the client ID, it
> must treat this as a new client registration and evaluate any authorization
> evidence the client provides before enabling the client and mapping
> policies to that client” (this means dynamic or automatic clients need to
> provide additional assertions / software statements whatever to register
> their ID.
>
>
>
> Something like this allows for very flexible systems:
>
> System A can be unknown to the AS but can dynamically registered each time
> with an appropriate software statement
>
> System B can have a fairly stable client ID at the AS, but rotate that ID
> every month through automatic registration (with an assertion it got from
> the AS during a pre-registration for example)
>
> System C can pre-register with the AS for a client ID because it doesn’t
> deal with software statements etc…
>
> …
>
> And even ‘StatelessAS’ can operate by never storing client IDs because it
> will always just rely on the software statements.
>
>
>
> I think a client registration protocol that allows these scenarios would
> be very useful in GNAP, but hopefully avoiding having to define what
> ‘evidence’ the AS needs to accept for each scenario.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> MV
>
>
>
> *From: *Txauth <txauth-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Mike Jones
> <Michael.Jones=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM
> *To: *Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>om>, "txauth@ietf.org" <
> txauth@ietf.org>gt;, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [Txauth] Key handle vs client id & handle
>
>
>
> I agree that there are significant differences between statically and
> dynamically registered clients and that’s appropriate to be able to
> syntactically differentiate between them at runtime.  For one thing, the
> resource requirements at the authorization server can be very different.
>
>
>
> We should also be thinking about how to include what the OpenID Connect
> Federation spec
> https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-federation-1_0.html calls
> “Automatic Registration”.  This lets the client encode a registration
> request reference in the client ID, so no static or dynamic registration
> even occurs.  See
> https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-federation-1_0-12.html#rfc.section.9.1
> .
>
>
>
>                                                        -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2020 1:17 PM
> *To:* txauth@ietf.org; Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>du>; Mike Jones <
> Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> *Subject:* Key handle vs client id & handle
>
>
>
> + Mike as he had interest in this topic
>
>
>
> My understanding is that an existing OAuth 2 client would use their
> current client id as their key handle, and a dynamic client (one that was
> not pre-registered) would be given a key handle by the AS.
>
>
>
> There are potentially some significant differences between a registered
> client, and a dynamic client to an AS.
>
>
>
> The AS is likely to know the identity of a registered client, and have
> different policies between the two types of clients. For example, a
> registered client may have access to a 'write" scope, while a dynamic
> client does not.
>
>
>
> The AS may have 100s or 1000s of registered clients, but a dynamic client
> may have 10Ms or 100Ms of instances, which may dictate separate storage
> services. Additionally, internal to the AS, which systems can write to the
> registered client store is going to be different than the dynamic
> client store.
>
>
>
> In XYZ, subsequent calls to the AS, both registered clients and dynamic
> clients pass a key handle, so there is no easy way to differentiate between
> the two.
>
>
>
> While the AS could embed semantics in the key handle identifier to
> indicate which identifiers are pre-registered vs dynamic, there are many
> cases where the AS does need to know the difference, so making the
> difference a feature of GNAP seems like a better path.
>
>
>
>
>
> This email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended
> recipients and may be privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from
> disclosure under law. Any distribution, printing or other use by anyone
> other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not an intended
> recipient, please contact the sender immediately, and permanently delete
> this email and its attachments.
>
ᐧ