[Wimse] Re: Token Exchange and Translation Protocol

[Andrii Deinega <[e-mail]>]

I'm in favor of option A, but I should mention that I'm also one of the
editors of this document.

I joined a design group because I noticed some gaps that, in my opinion,
shouldn't exist in the way we perform token exchange starting from that
it's often impossible to distinguish an ID Token from other JWTs out there.

https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issues/2162/recommendation-to-the-use-of-explicit

This is just one of the things, there are (many) others.

All the best,
Andrii


On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 1:04 PM Dmitry Izumskiy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I support A - continue to work on the document and focus on some
> specific formats like SPIFFE and AWS Identity Center.
>
> Best regards,
> Dmitry
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 9:05 PM Dean Saxe <dean.saxe=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback, Joe.  I think these are fair requests.
>>
>> -dhs
>> --
>> Dean H. Saxe, CIDPRO <https://idpro.org/cidpro/>
>> Principal Engineer, Office of the CTO
>> Beyond Identity
>> [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2024 at 3:11:15 PM, Joseph Salowey <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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]
>>>>
>>> --
>> 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]
>