Thanks very much for your feedback, Joe! On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:16 AM Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote:
> Hi Atul, > > I'm just starting to review the transaction tokens draft and have only a > minimal understanding of the token exchange document at this point so I'm > lacking a little background, but I have a few comments and questions below. > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:39 AM Atul Tulshibagwale <a...@sgnl.ai> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> We had a meeting today (notes here >> <https://hackmd.io/@rpc-sec-wg/HJNXYKkk0>) in which we discussed the >> question of what we should do if there is no incoming (external) token in >> the request to issue a Transaction Token >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens/> >> (TraT). We identified a few circumstances under which this can happen: >> >> - The requesting service is triggered by a non-OAuth based flow such >> as email or an internal trigger >> - The client of the requesting service uses means other than an >> access token to authorize the call (e.g. MTLS) >> >> [Joe] I think there will be a fair number of systems that support means > of authorizing non-oauth flows. > > > >> We identified a few possibilities listed below. Please note that the >> Transaction Tokens draft assumes that the TraT Service trusts the >> requesting service, so all the possibilities below assume this. >> >> > [Joe] yes, you are trusting another part of the system to perform some > authorization and inform the token service of the result. > > >> Here are some possibilities we discussed: >> >> 1. *Request Details*: Put the subject information in the >> request_details parameter of the TraT request, and the subject_token value >> is set to "N_A" >> 2. *Self-Signed Token*: The requester generates a self-signed JWT >> that has the subject information and puts that in the subject_token value >> >> [Joe] I like having signed tokens, but if this is really information just > exchanged between two endpoints it may be more work than necessary. > >> >> 1. *Separate Separate Endpoint*: The TraT service exposes a separate >> endpoint to issue TraTs when there is no incoming token, and that endpoint >> can be defined such that the request does not have a subject_token >> parameter. This endpoint is not a profile of OAuth Token Exchange >> 2. *Separate Endpoint Only*: Extending the thought above, the >> requester can always extract the content of the incoming token into the >> "request_details" parameter, so why do we need the Token Exchange endpoint >> >> [Joe] What do we gain by using token exchange? While it seems that there > is overlap between delegation/impersonation it seems that transaction > tokens are sort of a superset and contain additional information about the > context of the transaction. If it looks like token exchange is too > constraining then transaction tokens may just be a different use case. > With the understanding I currently have I'd either go with 4. Separate > Endpoint Only or 2. Self Signed token. Splitting the endpoints could be > valid, but it seems a bit weird for me, if we did decide to do that then > probably we wouldn't need to sign the information unless the request is > going to traverse multiple systems. > > > >> We would like to understand how the group feels about these choices, or >> if you have other suggestions / thoughts on this topic. >> >> Thanks, >> Atul >> >> -- >> >> <https://sgnl.ai> >> >> Atul Tulshibagwale >> >> CTO >> >> <https://linkedin.com/in/tulshi> <https://twitter.com/zirotrust> >> <a...@sgnl.ai> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
