[Wimse] Re: Token Exchange and Translation Protocol

[Joseph Salowey <[e-mail]>]

I support A - continue to work on this document to develop it for working
group adoption.  While the document needs a fair amount of work, I don't
see anything that really hinders it from becoming something that we could
adopt.
What I would like to see in this document:
1. I would like to see the more concrete use cases and examples fleshed out
more.  Maybe not all of them need to go into the document, but I think we
will need these going forward.
2. Do we think that all the use cases will need to use a new token
translation endpoint?  I'm not sure, but I really would like to understand
the functionality and characteristics of the new endpoint.  Also it seems
token exchange would work for some of the use cases, would the use of
existing token exchange procedures be described in this document as well?
3. I like that there already are some security considerations in the
document, but I'd like to see a bit more fleshed out before adoption, but
it does not need to be exhaustive at this point.

Thanks,

Joe


On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 2:04 PM Flemming Andreasen (fandreas) <fandreas=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dean
>
> I think we are largely on the same page here. Wrt. the use cases I-D, I
> assume you are referring to
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gilman-wimse-use-cases-00.html ? If
> so, that draft expired in February, and I'm not clear on what the intent of
> it is going forward. Regardless, when you look at the use cases described
> in there, I don't see anything specifically talking about token
> exchange/translation. I think I generally understand the notion of token
> exchange based on RFC 8693, however I'm less clear on token translation as
> defined in the draft. The AWS-to-SPIFFE scenario described in the draft
> makes sense, and I am asking for more such examples to help guide the
> specific translations we shold be focusing on (profiles). From a
> documentation point of view, I like the more descriptive style of some of
> the use cases, but I also recognize the value of the user story approach
> taken in the use-cases draft above - a combination of the two would be
> ideal from my point of view.
>
> Cheers
>
> -- Flemming
>
>
> On 7/31/24 14:47, Dean Saxe wrote:
>
> Flemming,
>
> Thank you again for the feedback.
>
>
> For IETF 120 the most important output (IMHO) was to frame up the problem
> space and an approach to solving for the use cases we identified.  The doc
> is rough and at a high level because we really needed feedback to inform
> the next steps - are we approaching this problem from the right
> perspective?  Are we missing something in the existing RFCs?
>
> I agree that there’s more work to be done on the use cases draft to inform
> this document.
>
> Additional commentary/questions inline below.
>
> -dhs
> --
> Dean H. Saxe, CIDPRO <https://idpro.org/cidpro/>
> Principal Engineer, Office of the CTO
> Beyond Identity
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2024 at 6:16:23 PM, Flemming Andreasen (fandreas) <fandreas=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> We have a charter item corresponding to this document and I don't see any
>> other candidate documents at this time, so I vote for A.
>>
>> The document is pretty rough though and mostly introduces some of the
>> problems to consider. Additionally, the document would benefit from the
>> following:
>> - More work on the requirements to feed into this document (per separate
>> e-mail thread on requirements)
>> - A set of representative use case scenarios to illustrate what we are
>> after. This is especially important for the "token translation" scenarios.
>>
>
> How is this different from the use cases described in the use cases I-D?
> Are these more concrete examples or something entirely different?
>
> - Clarity on whether we aim to use (/profile) RFC 8693 for "token
>> translation" or whether that is only for "token exchange"
>>
>
> I have an action item to follow up with Brian Campbell on this as
> discussed in the WG last week.
>
>
> - Clarity on which token formats we want to be able to translate/exchange.
>> While the document notes that these will be provided as "translation
>> profiles", we shold understand the target ones early on, and develop at
>> least some of them in parallel with the basic translation/exchange
>> protocol.
>>
>
> I am supportive of developing the profiles side-by-side with this ID.  I
> thought I had said that in the meeting, but if I did not, that was my
> intent.  My thought process was to enable profiles to be developed on a
> separate track to allow the WG to deliver RFC candidates more quickly
> without allowing one profile to bog down the work on the larger token
> translation doc.
>
> If you have suggested token translations to focus on in the near term,
> please let me know.
>
>
>
>> Cheers
>>
>> -- Flemming
>>
>>
>> On 7/29/24 08:25, Justin Richer wrote:
>>
>> Following discussion in Vancouver, the chairs would like to begin
>> discussion on what the next steps should be for the Token Exchange and
>> Translation Protocol document [1], an output of the Token Exchange Design
>> Team. This is not a call for adoption as there was a clear indication in
>> the room that the document was not yet ready for this stage.
>>
>> Please reply to the list to indicate that:
>>
>> A: You believe this document should be developed into a state that the WG
>> can adopt it. (Please discuss what you believe would be required changes
>> for this. Please keep in mind that a call for adoption is a starting point
>> for a document, not a finished document.)
>>
>> B: You believe this document should NOT be developed further by the WG.
>> (Please indicate why if possible)
>>
>> C: You need more information before making this decision. (Please
>> indicate what information you’d need)
>>
>> D: You don’t give a flying rat about this document (i.e., this is not a
>> topic you care strongly about)
>>
>>
>> Please reply to the list by August 12th, 2024.
>>
>> — Justin and Pieter
>>
>> [1]
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saxe-wimse-token-exchange-and-translation/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wimse mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>
> --
> Wimse mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>