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

[Francis Pouatcha <[e-mail]>]

In this context, I suggest we pick some words to work with, and sharpen
them as we move on, discover and map new use cases to the protocol.

In this diagram from the original thread (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/IaSLC_72_KimjOBJqdmQY-JOGNw/),
I replaced the words:

+-----------+      +--------------+  +----+  +----+  +---------------------+
| Requestor |      | Orchestrator |  |    |  | GS |  | Resource Controller |
|   was     |      |     was      |  | RS |  | or |  |         was         |
|  User     |      |   Client     |  |    |  | AS |  |    Resource Owner   |
+-----------+      +--------------+  +----+  +----+  +---------------------+
  |(1) ServiceRequest     |            |       |                |
  |---------------------->|            |       |                |
  |                       |(2) ServiceIntent:AuthZChallenge     |
  |                       |<---------->|       |                |
  |                       |            |       |                |
  |                       |(3) AuthZRequest(AuthZChallenge)     |
  |                       |------------------->|                |
  |                       |            |       |(4) ConsentRequest:Grant
  |                       |            |       |<-------------->|
  |                       |(5) GrantAccess(AuthZ)               |
  |                       |<-------------------|                |
  |                       |            |       |                |
  |                       |(6) ServiceRequest(AuthZ):ServiceResponse
  |                       |<---------->|       |                |
  |(7) ServiceResponse    |            |       |                |
  |<----------------------|            |       |                |
  +                       +            +       +                +

The purpose of the GNAP protocol is to help negotiate access to a protected
resource. It starts with a requestor delegating activity to an
orchestrator. These are all roles, no entities. Let focus on mapping the
use cases to the protocol roles and interactions so wwe can discover what
is missing.

It seems cumbersome to use it in discussions as it is impossible to give
the word "Client" a clear definition.

We can mention in the final document, that the "Orchestrator" (or whatever
word we finally use) plays the same role as the "Client" in oAuth2.

Best regards.
/Francis





On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:05 PM Dick Hardt <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
> <[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>
>> --
>> Txauth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>
>>
>> --
>> TXAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>
> --
> TXAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>


-- 
Francis Pouatcha
Co-Founder and Technical Lead
adorsys GmbH & Co. KG
https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/