Re: [Txauth] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-gnap-00-01: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Denis,

On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 11:30:25AM +0200, Denis wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I jump into this discussion with a one day delay because we are not in 
> the same time zone.

Okay.

> Justin and myself had a discussion on the mailing list and we came into 
> the following agreement which is not reflected in the current draft.
> 
>     [Denis]  Would this mean that we strongly agree together that the
>     model should not assume a closely-tied connection between an RS and
>     any single AS ?
> 
>     [Justin] Correct, *we shouldn’t assume it, but we should also not
>     preclude it*. I think a lot of the internet is going keep with that

Note that "should not preclude it" means that we should allow it in some
cases, even though we don't require it.

>     model for some time to come,
>     even if it’s not universal.
> 
> I noticed the following exchange:
> 
>     [Ben] Would "AS-directed dispatch to the appropriate RS" (or
>     similar) be a useful way to describe this?
> 
>     [Justin] I think that works, as it’s basically about the AS telling
>     the client what to do next.
> 
> The RS (i.e. not the AS) should tell the client what to do next. Since 
> an AS has not necessarily a close relationship with RSs, it is unable to 
> do it.

My understanding is that this "AS-directed dispatch to the appropriate RS"
functionality is intended to be an optional, not required, feature of the
protocol.  I do not see strong justification for us to force any single
workflow on the protocol at this time, whether RS-directed or AS-directed.

> The close relationship between ASs and RSs should only be considered for 
> some kind of backward compatibility with OAuth 2.0.

I understand that this is your belief.  I do not see much indication that
it is the WG consensus, at this time.

-Ben