Re: [GNAP] [Txauth] Revisiting the photo sharing example (a driving use case for the creation of OAuth)

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Thu, 13 August 2020 15:22 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 808A43A0D61 for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:22:17 -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=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 tIATjSpG28mp for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x244.google.com (mail-lj1-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::244]) (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 609CC3A0D60 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x244.google.com with SMTP id w14so6629328ljj.4 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:22:15 -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=2NBg5iIubdStm7S8wvvxyFsCzKiwF+OEd3P5yuZIIp4=; b=nKAMyBwbFxzY6cHfPUujfxDklWKto6/ByOG5RVUtq62sv66FWqxSBNek0j0SfQOa1T DS+hshstZNioThjKqCiiAufLow5+Ih3bIQIUrBhdSQA0oMDRYvpaWGl57yH6kDBsocKt dEeuZwMlX/I6EzCuNe00UDSGEXuYlt0xC6MhFuoAHwY6utLivNlieEBZ7dlgvqNz5iuE 8CZScVMpENrjny3IqF9Jwy38qOK7e8jIvs5zzUCB/BEwTzMcgYHbtNpcL4mUqhF5UoeO oSgydXwHZeNvqtmYb+y5Cuir1bPpUhes1WVaMvkre2OQNnkvLKFho7uP0+eW5MB0FezF ApQQ==
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=2NBg5iIubdStm7S8wvvxyFsCzKiwF+OEd3P5yuZIIp4=; b=MhF8Fe733E367Oz7o7oUVvBWLCmG/sANMsEoA/qYhU666U7U0HqYHl5fKelpjkNLMm +/BBDXhmEY56GKyGgE5JyZcpjJRvUhsTqfAvO8wGeRNzCPJpW6jngHChAOMP3RDcRobh /x8rcEzhCvVKyFpFtAiDPCDVdnmz3bcKmlEIsJsD+gdz7eSWZ2k1Rmp+Huk37A7Yr2cX CXMPTqyKlgLi8+mP6xc/hfbrYePMTUrjzqC5Ob2Wu82k8N2lEKNMGxNgKYObBnqG6ix9 Oxh0O0TeBpRlOHcxo6aqfdGbabddIA3aucsiVqp5IVqtcE+PZ/okZJduAp74hxEL8yXa 01Sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532i13veigLz9lDmQVrN7tZYD5+gcPy5EAMaP6DZn2oEikuq7ECR or7UPZNrlGC4ROIdXUoeV0YRObHXUyHsWHVpAH0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQXXFp8uYc9Insp4LTgblYmdSUL7EhnCdA6hqnLkDu4B9XZVwOIiMC2ztnRziolAdL9KATj9uiGUfztiyi24Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0db:: with SMTP id g27mr2417963ljl.69.1597332133041; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <CAOW4vyN4ifCXmk1XAyGK4cEfY1jTp6+AWOL-uNjEpVcp0Ku0UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-ugjNevqKAPWFjKqGMMpCvX6yyC=M4bs9naenJf-k9uqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW4vyOrXstAvc3eKbsUh+gOPT-79nevR8nT5FyKTe+aAQ1pSw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-sZbxBKuLgC3Bu+yzJATOETdto=S83B6FOmC3gFJWz1jw@mail.gmail.com> <1b4a6a43-4c57-92b4-f442-2da58a2d0d70@free.fr> <CAD9ie-s5_tOZhE57tj1b+XaqDw+D43n_wStOPSmi7cioG2Z+gw@mail.gmail.com> <6678f154-31e7-2d01-2002-f3600f589c96@free.fr> <CD0AE256-7868-4B00-9235-300CB55506BC@mit.edu> <CAM8feuS0K3OTmNY6fzYKOtZeh1_6r_+UhW3uBzT96agw56akRA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM8feuS0K3OTmNY6fzYKOtZeh1_6r_+UhW3uBzT96agw56akRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:21:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD9ie-t8DEZYMOn5Pvx0e6GCyoz7+s=wWk5Bz12=22KWjJ72Tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>, Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr>, "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>, Francis Pouatcha <fpo@adorsys.de>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000060de0405acc3de98"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/eZi0kxUWvqxwjTWqA_JyvwS7nQk>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] [Txauth] Revisiting the photo sharing example (a driving use case for the creation of OAuth)
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, 13 Aug 2020 15:22:18 -0000

I agree with clearly separating the GS interaction with the Client from the
interaction with the User.

I'm having a hard time viewing those as two different roles. They are two
different interactions. Just as the client interaction with the AS is
different from the client interaction with the GS.
ᐧ

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:18 AM Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Without surprise, +1 to differentiate between the back-channel and the
> front-channel.
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 5:15 PM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Denis, I want to focus on one point here:
>>
>> In OAuth 2.0, the user consent is performed by the AS using an authorize
>> endpoint where the user consent is solicited and captured.
>>
>> Since a user, with no prior experience, shall first connect to a RS to
>> perform an operation, the user consent shall be performed by the RS,
>> instead of the AS. This means that we should define a "consent" endpoint
>> at the RS.
>>
>>
>> One of my goals with XYZ’s design was to be able to separate the
>> interaction with the user from the web-based flows for the delegation
>> protocol, and that aspect is enshrined in the GNAP charter as well.
>>
>> It points to the reality that there are two different aspects of the
>> traditional AS that we might need to talk about separately now. One deals
>> with delegation, issuing tokens, returning data directly to the client (not
>> through a separate API, since that’s the RS), and other back-channel stuff.
>> The other aspect deals with interacting with the user and/or resource
>> owner.
>>
>> We already saw bits of this in OAuth 2: the AS is defined by the pair of
>> the token endpoint and authorization endpoint, each filling the respective
>> roles above. What if we formally separate these? Strawman names:
>>
>>
>> Delegation Server (DS) - handles the back-channel stuff
>>
>> Interaction Server (IS) - handles the front-channel stuff
>>
>>
>>  — Justin
>>
>> --
>> TXAuth mailing list
>> TXAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>
>