Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Mon, 08 May 2017 18:13 UTC
Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDE812896F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 11:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pingidentity.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 pQh2eXEgBYrj for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 11:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22a.google.com (mail-pf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22a]) (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 4EE861250B8 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2017 11:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v14so36852921pfd.2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 May 2017 11:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=gmail; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=psH70Lk7KyWP9SQfnFPocI7WKCDFKfOhn5YqJOLSAMo=; b=Z26v5d8rLdEbzjZCRSLpzy3aw54aP05noI1NRfyYDuizXMYssxYbijtGGWfPtr4at8 e/YMLiGf7JWZGWx1V0oUzuszgU/iv/2lIwUIgA7dVOszk4saswasQ4lsHABVbKptjury uLGY+jtUq0iqwtJ2EsJXdLv+2XCdSSurFgqWw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=psH70Lk7KyWP9SQfnFPocI7WKCDFKfOhn5YqJOLSAMo=; b=CteiXTkh45dDXd113TRR9A3Hye+YEahEbtK2nWiMg/SY07vrmfKzjCaGg/+0xA4Cvz SOLOvhvQ09SK6i/gvHakyMHUFVbPImDiVq9faIWNa795EobZXWKwp0QXJQXuNDE4qMZX J4MQsidZsEPWvaBBNc2YUF8bqf4WrkFM4CorBSLgG4NkdNeD1HrhcdbcoMEcpjcixkL6 3DXFa8UK+vTCUK0Pd93allME8zTzmeTTYyVSDaGz08e1vxym9R2k89ralZSRdp4tohl5 k19aneBhHjPUJeN4EUz9/Sn28A6TSR/x/3hc5HXTW+0SpiZF4PCqA+V6RWVhbKYAs4Fw dT0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/5s5om4BQPCfYntokoLnWEO6jCEUbKK6ev9qybjFyfrx9KYK8pT rdPZ0fEiIM+QANsOrdU7Y+w5Xr44jw7j
X-Received: by 10.99.106.5 with SMTP id f5mr19616960pgc.66.1494267189752; Mon, 08 May 2017 11:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.154.205 with HTTP; Mon, 8 May 2017 11:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f0762794-be7e-a3b7-28e9-239ced1f9754@free.fr>
References: <148416124213.8244.5842562779051799977.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+k3eCTE1NM90QcZRFR0jATCqdeJWyTRUb6Ryp52n9FRg6aGpA@mail.gmail.com> <9199091B-5D7F-4D66-9EC5-CB0EF2D3CF6D@lodderstedt.net> <CA+k3eCTjmifjsbec80vGTE5Hw4ws7oARuaatDk4RYOLK26-87Q@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR21MB050479DBD8A7AB6342682209F5330@CY4PR21MB0504.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <30B37ED3-6E3B-4739-9917-BDEC198CA027@lodderstedt.net> <CABzCy2ArQ29xtyzT+t4i1fq9XZT+fMLgsw5oV75aFTkvVf8tgw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCRMwS7KiCyrGm8d6Syo=SpfR65zSb0MFJ8A1ns=DVrR0g@mail.gmail.com> <CAGL6epKM8DyTqG4gLr0OnVJXtZyhziiit7UnRjBs-ME0rvPtpA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCStAqU0kQOuyrOkjPO8zejf519ZxcVFzkV-y_feR8STUQ@mail.gmail.com> <f0762794-be7e-a3b7-28e9-239ced1f9754@free.fr>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 12:12:39 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCQ7Djjdhvhn0RvHdmTOJ+_68r_KhRvWCe8z4PZT8YPhvg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c13f4560b99d4054f07317a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Up8scUtj15CURJE2pubexCOhdB0>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 18:13:13 -0000
The actor_token is a security token so that's not an issue that needs to be addressed. On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> wrote: > Brian, > > The current text is: > > actor_token OPTIONAL. A security token that represents the identity of the > party that is authorized to use the requested security token and act on > behalf of the subject. > > This sentence is indeed wrong since an actor-token is not a security token. > > So your proposed change does not solve this issue: actor_token > OPTIONAL. A security token that represents the identity of the acting > party. > > The current text states: > > Typically, in the request, the subject_token represents the identity of > the party on behalf of whom > the token is being requested while the actor_token represents the identity > of the party to whom the access > rights of the issued token are being delegated. > > Logically, the definition should be along the following lines: > > actor_token OPTIONAL. Indicates the identity of the party to whom the > access rights of the issued token are being delegated. > > If there is no delegation, then this field (which is optional) will not be > used. > > Anyway, thank you for requesting the change, otherwise this would have > been a left error. > > Denis > > I do have one minor issue I'd like to raise that relates to some > conversations I've been a party to recently about implementations and > applications of token exchange. > > I think that the current text in §2.1 for the "actor_token" is overly > specific towards the delegation scenario. I'd propose the language be > generalized somewhat to allow more versatility in applications/deployments > of the token exchange framework. Here's that text: > > actor_token > OPTIONAL. A security token that represents the identity of the > acting party. > > > > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> The last email from Brian addresses the multiple audiences/resources >> issue with an error code, and we did not see any objection to this approach >> so far. >> >> >> *Authors,* >> >> Are there any other open issues with this draft? >> Do you believe it is ready for WGLC? >> >> Thanks, >> Rifaat & Hannes >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Brian Campbell < >> bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote: >> >>> As mentioned during the Chicago meeting the "invalid_target" error code >>> that was added in -07 was intended to give the AS a standard way to reject >>> request with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is >>> unwilling or unable to process based on policy or whatever criteria . It >>> was intended as a compromise, of sorts, to allow for the multiple >>> resources/audiences in the request but provide an easy out for the AS of >>> saying it can't be supported based on whatever implementation or security >>> or policy it has. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There are cases where tokens are supposed to be consumed at multiple >>>> places and the `aud` needed to capture them. That's why `aud` is a >>>> multi-valued field. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:35 AM Torsten Lodderstedt < >>>> torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> May I ask you to explain this reason? >>>>> >>>>> Am 27.03.2017 um 08:48 schrieb Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> For the same reason that the “aud” claim is multi-valued in JWTs, the >>>>> audience needs to stay multi-valued in Token Exchange. Ditto for resources. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -- Mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org <oauth-bounces@ietf.org>] >>>>> *On Behalf Of *Brian Campbell >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 8:45 AM >>>>> *To:* Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> >>>>> *Cc:* oauth <oauth@ietf.org> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchang >>>>> e-07.txt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the review and question, Torsten. >>>>> >>>>> The desire to support multiple audience/resource values in the request >>>>> came up during a review and discussion among the authors of the document >>>>> when preparing the -03 draft. As I recall, it was said that both Salesforce >>>>> and Microsoft had use-cases for it. I incorporated support for it into the >>>>> draft acting in the role of editor. >>>>> >>>>> From an individual perspective, I tend to agree with you that allowing >>>>> for multiple audiences/resources adds a lot of complexity that's like not >>>>> needed in many (or most) cases. And I would personally be open to making >>>>> audience and resource mutual exclusive and single valued. A question for >>>>> the WG I suppose. >>>>> >>>>> The "invalid_target" error code that was added in -07 was intended to >>>>> give the AS a standard way to deal with the complexity and reject request >>>>> with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is >>>>> unwilling or unable to process. It was intended as a compromise, of sorts, >>>>> to allow for the multiples but provide an easy out of saying it can't be >>>>> supported based on whatever implementation or policy of the AS. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt < >>>>> torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Brian, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> thanks for the clarification around resource, audience and scope. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here are my comments on the draft: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In section 2.1 it states: „Multiple "resource" parameters may be used >>>>> to indicate >>>>> >>>>> that the issued token is intended to be used at the multiple >>>>> >>>>> resources listed.“ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can you please explain the rational in more detail? I don’t understand >>>>> why there is a need to ask for access tokens, which are good for multiple >>>>> resources at once. This is a request type more or less exclusively used in >>>>> server to server scenarios, right? So the only reason I can think of is >>>>> call reduction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On the other side, this feature increases the AS's complexity, e.g. >>>>> its policy may prohibit to issue tokens for multiple resources in general >>>>> or the particular set the client is asking for. How shall the AS handles >>>>> such cases? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And it is getting even more complicated given there could also be >>>>> multiple audience values and the client could mix them: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Multiple "audience" parameters >>>>> >>>>> may be used to indicate that the issued token is intended to be >>>>> >>>>> used at the multiple audiences listed. The "audience" and >>>>> >>>>> "resource" parameters may be used together to indicate multiple >>>>> >>>>> target services with a mix of logical names and physical >>>>> >>>>> locations.“ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And in the end the client may add some scope values to the „meal“, >>>>> which brings us to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> „Effectively, the requested access rights of the >>>>> >>>>> token are the cartesian product of all the scopes at all the target >>>>> >>>>> services." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I personally would suggest to drop support for multiple audience and >>>>> resource parameters and make audience and resource mutual exclusive. I >>>>> think this is sufficient and much easier to implement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Torsten. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 11.01.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Brian Campbell < >>>>> bcampbell@pingidentity.com>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Draft -07 of "OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange" has been published. The >>>>> primary change in -07 is the addition of a description of the relationship >>>>> between audience/resource/scope, which was a request or comment that came >>>>> up during the f2f meeting in Seoul. >>>>> >>>>> Excerpted from the Document History: >>>>> >>>>> -07 >>>>> >>>>> o Fixed typo (desecration -> discretion). >>>>> o Added an explanation of the relationship between scope, audience >>>>> and resource in the request and added an "invalid_target" error >>>>> code enabling the AS to tell the client that the requested >>>>> audiences/resources were too broad. >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> >>>>> Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:00 PM >>>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt >>>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >>>>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>>> directories. >>>>> This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol of the >>>>> IETF. >>>>> >>>>> Title : OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange >>>>> Authors : Michael B. Jones >>>>> Anthony Nadalin >>>>> Brian Campbell >>>>> John Bradley >>>>> Chuck Mortimore >>>>> Filename : draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt >>>>> Pages : 31 >>>>> Date : 2017-01-11 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> This specification defines a protocol for an HTTP- and JSON- based >>>>> Security Token Service (STS) by defining how to request and obtain >>>>> security tokens from OAuth 2.0 authorization servers, including >>>>> security tokens employing impersonation and delegation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange/ >>>>> >>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07 >>>>> >>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>>> submission >>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>>> >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Nat Sakimura >>>> >>>> Chairman of the Board, OpenID Foundation >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing listOAuth@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >
- [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exc… internet-drafts
- [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-toke… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Denis
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token… Brian Campbell