Thanks all, for your input. We discussed alternatives on a call last week <https://hackmd.io/@rpc-sec-wg/BkdOgipkA>, and arrived at using self-signed tokens with token exchange as a way forward.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 10:58 AM Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> wrote: > One potential benefit of keeping the use of Token Exchange is that some AS > products/implementations have built a fair amount of configurability and > extensibility into their Token Exchange support, which might allow for > existing systems to be set up to do Transaction Tokens. Whereas a new > endpoint or new grant type are more likely to require code changes to the > core AS. Obviously this isn't universally true but something to consider > nonetheless. > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:13 AM Kai Lehmann <kai.lehmann= > 401und1...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> that is my thought as well. It does not necessarily be a Token Exchange >> profile, but the Token endpoint makes sense as Tokens are issued. Defining >> a specific Token grant with the necessary input parameters would fit nicely. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Kai >> >> >> >> *From: *OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Dmitry Telegin >> <dmitryt=40backbase....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> *Date: *Friday, 5. April 2024 at 00:41 >> *To: *Atul Tulshibagwale <a...@sgnl.ai> >> *Cc: *oauth <oauth@ietf.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [OAUTH-WG] Transaction Tokens issuance in the absence of >> incoming token >> >> >> >> Hello Atul, >> >> >> >> As an alternative to Token Exchange and separate (new) endpoint, have you >> ever considered OAuth 2.0 Extension Grants >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-4.5>? This could >> give us more flexibility as will let us define our own set of input >> parameters and validation rules (opposite to Token Exchange that restricts >> us to subject_token and friends). >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Dmitry >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:02 PM Atul Tulshibagwale <a...@sgnl.ai> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> [image: Image removed by sender.] <https://sgnl.ai/> >> >> Atul Tulshibagwale >> >> CTO >> >> [image: Image removed by sender.] <https://linkedin.com/in/tulshi>[image: >> Image removed by sender.] <https://twitter.com/zirotrust>[image: Image >> removed by sender.] <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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender > immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from > your computer. Thank you.*
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
