Re: [Txauth] Reviewing draft-hardt-xauth-protocol-11

[Francis Pouatcha <[e-mail]>]

Hello Denis,

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:04 AM Denis <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dick,
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Denis <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Francis and Dick,
>>
>> The good news first: we are making some progress. We are now close to an
>> agreement with steps (1) up to (3),
>> ... except that the place where the user consent is captured is not
>> mentioned/indicated.
>>
>
> This major question which is currently left unanswered is where, when and
> how the user consent is captured.
>
> Another important point to consider and to explain is related to the
> assurances that the user can obtain about
> the respect of his choices. This point is currently left unanswered in
> draft-hardt-xauth-protocol-13.
>
>
>> If a RO needs to be involved and since a RO is directly associated with a
>> RS, why can't it be directly queried
>> by the appropriate RS after step (2) or later on ?
>>
>
> Good question. Perhaps you can expand on a use case where that would be
> useful?
>
> Before I expand, would you be able to explain first under which
> circumstances a RO needs to be queried by a GS ?
>
In all circumstances. Can you name a situation where this is not the case?

> How can the GS identify which RO to query ?
>
There is supposed to be a preexisting relationship between GS and RO, If
not RO will have to register with GS in the first interaction (onboarding).

How can the GS identify how to connect with RO?
GS must evaluate the RS provided info in step (3)
AuthZRequest(AuthZChallenge) to decide how to contact the RO. This is where
selection of interaction mode takes place.

>
>
>> Which information is supposed to be presented to the RO ?
>> Which information is supposed to be returned by the RO ?
>>
>
> Just like how the user authenticates to an AS, how the AS and RO
> communicate is out of scope.
>
> At the moment, the usefulness of a dialogue between a GS and a RO has not
> been explained, nor demonstrated.
> The question is about the functionality of that dialogue in terms of input
> and output information (and not about
> the design of a protocol or of a user interface). Anyway, AFAIU a dialogue
> between a GS and a RO is optional.
>
> For many use cases, the User is the RO, and the interaction is through a
> user interface, not a machine protocol.
>
> Wait a second. You wrote "the User is the RO". The User is attempting to
> make an access to a RS by using a Client.
> *That* User is not the RO of the RS.
>
> The User interacts with the Client.
The RO interacts with the GS.

In some use cases (where we use redirect interaction) we assume the person
controlling the "User-Agent" is also the person controlling the "RO-Agent"
and they reside on the same device. These are cases where we say User
equals RO.
-- 
Francis Pouatcha
Co-Founder and Technical Lead
adorsys GmbH & Co. KG
https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/