+1 (binding) Thanks
On Mon, 21 May 2018 at 04:59 Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Committers. One more binding affirmative vote is required if KIP 255 > is to have a chance of being included in the 2.0.0 release. Please vote > today. > > Ron > > > On May 18, 2018, at 9:27 PM, Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi committers. KIP 255 still needs 1 more binding vote. Currently > there are two binding + 1 votes, from Rajini and Jun, and three non-binding > +1 votes, from Mickael, Manikumar, and myself. > > > > Please vote by the Monday deadline. > > > > Ron > > > >> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Jun. I've updated the KIP to add a new section titled "Summary for > Production Use" that includes this information along with a consolidated > set of references to the applicable specifications. Thanks for the > questions. > >> > >> *We still need another binding vote* (currently there are two binding + > 1 votes, from Rajini and Jun, and three non-binding +1 votes, from Mickael, > Manikumar, and myself). > >> > >> Please vote before the May 22nd KIP Freeze deadline so this KIP can be > included in the 2.0.0 release. > >> > >> A pull request is available and includes additional commits reflecting > initial review comments: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4994 > >> > >> Ron > >> > >>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > >>> Hi, Ron, > >>> > >>> Thanks. I understand now. It may be useful to add a reference to JWT > in the > >>> KIP. > >>> > >>> Jun > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hi Jun. I think you are getting at the fact that OAuth 2 is a > flexible > >>> > framework that allows different installations to do things > differently. It > >>> > is true that the principal name in Kafka could come from any claim > in the > >>> > token. Most of the time it would come from the 'sub' claim, but it > could > >>> > certainly come from another claim, or it could be only indirectly > based on > >>> > a claim value (maybe certain text would be trimmed or > prefixed/suffixed). > >>> > The point, which I think you are getting at, is that because the > framework > >>> > is flexible we need to accommodate that flexibility. The callback > handler > >>> > class defined by the listener.name.sasl_ssl.oauthbearer.sasl.server. > >>> > callback.handler.class configuration value gives us the required > >>> > flexibility. As an example, I have an implementation that leverages > a > >>> > popular open source JOSE library to parse the compact serialization, > >>> > retrieve the public key if it has not yet been retrieved, verify the > >>> > digital signature, and map the 'sub' claim to the OAuthBearerToken's > >>> > principal name (which becomes the SASL authorization ID, which > becomes the > >>> > Kafka principal name). I could just as easily have mapped a > different > >>> > claim to the OAuthBearerToken's principal name, manipulated the > 'sub' claim > >>> > value in some way, etc. I write the callback handler code, so I > complete > >>> > flexibility to do whatever my OAuth 2 installation requires me to do. > >>> > > >>> > Ron > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Hi, Ron, > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks for the reply. I understood your answers to #2 and #3. > >>> > > > >>> > > For #1, will the server map all clients' principal name to the > value > >>> > > associated with "sub" claim? How do we support mapping different > clients > >>> > to > >>> > > different principal names? > >>> > > > >>> > > Jun > >>> > > > >>> > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi Jun. Thanks for the +1 vote. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Regarding the first question about token claims, yes, you have it > >>> > correct > >>> > > > about translating the OAuth token to a principle name via a JAAS > module > >>> > > > option in the default unsecured case. Specifically, the OAuth > SASL > >>> > > Server > >>> > > > implementation is responsible for setting the authorization ID, > and it > >>> > > gets > >>> > > > the authorization ID from the OAuthBearerToken's principalName() > >>> > method. > >>> > > > The listener.name.sasl_ssl.oauthbearer.sasl.server. > >>> > > callback.handler.class > >>> > > > is responsible for handling an instance of > OAuthBearerValidatorCallback > >>> > > to > >>> > > > accept a token compact serialization from the client and return > an > >>> > > instance > >>> > > > of OAuthBearerToken (assuming the compact serialization > validates), and > >>> > > in > >>> > > > the default unsecured case the builtin unsecured validator > callback > >>> > > handler > >>> > > > defines the OAuthBearerToken.principalName() method to return the > >>> > 'sub' > >>> > > > claim value by default (with the actual claim it uses being > >>> > configurable > >>> > > > via the unsecuredValidatorPrincipalClaimName JAAS module > option). So > >>> > > that > >>> > > > is how we translate from a token to a principal name in the > default > >>> > > > unsecured (out-of-the-box) case. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > For production use cases, the implementation associated with > >>> > > > > listener.name.sasl_ssl.oauthbearer.sasl.server.callback.handler.class > >>> > > can > >>> > > > do whatever it wants. As an example, I have written a class that > >>> > wraps a > >>> > > > com.nimbusds.jwt.SignedJWT instance (see > >>> > > > https://connect2id.com/products/nimbus-jose-jwt/) and presents > it as > >>> > an > >>> > > > OAuthBearerToken: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > public class NimbusSignedJwtOAuthBearerToken implements > >>> > > OAuthBearerToken { > >>> > > > private final SignedJWT signedJwt; > >>> > > > private final String principalName; > >>> > > > private final Set<String> scope; > >>> > > > private final Long startTimeMs; > >>> > > > private final long lifetimeMs; > >>> > > > > >>> > > > /** > >>> > > > * Constructor > >>> > > > * > >>> > > > * @param signedJwt > >>> > > > * the mandatory signed JWT > >>> > > > * @param principalClaimName > >>> > > > * the mandatory claim name identifying the claim > from > >>> > > which > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > * principal name will be extracted. The claim > must > >>> > exist > >>> > > > and must be > >>> > > > * a String. > >>> > > > * @param optionalScopeClaimName > >>> > > > * the optional claim name identifying the claim > from > >>> > > which > >>> > > > any scope > >>> > > > * will be extracted. If specified and the claim > exists > >>> > > then > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > * value must be either a String or a String List. > >>> > > > * @throws ParseException > >>> > > > * if the principal claim does not exist or is > not a > >>> > > > String; the > >>> > > > * scope claim is neither a String nor a String > List; > >>> > the > >>> > > > 'exp' > >>> > > > * claim does not exist or is not a number; the > 'iat' > >>> > > claim > >>> > > > exists > >>> > > > * but is not a number; or the 'nbf' claim > exists and > >>> > is > >>> > > > not a > >>> > > > * number. > >>> > > > */ > >>> > > > public NimbusSignedJwtOAuthBearerToken(SignedJWT signedJwt, > String > >>> > > > principalClaimName, > >>> > > > String optionalScopeClaimName) throws ParseException > { > >>> > > > // etc... > >>> > > > } > >>> > > > > >>> > > > The callback handler runs the following code if the digital > signature > >>> > > > validates: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > callback.token(new NimbusSignedJwtOAuthBearerToken(signedJwt, > >>> > "sub", > >>> > > > null)); > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I hope that answers the first question. If not let me know what > I > >>> > > > missed/misunderstood and I'll be glad to try to address it. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Regarding the second question, the classes > OAuthBearerTokenCallback and > >>> > > > OAuthBearerValidatorCallback implement the Callback interface -- > they > >>> > are > >>> > > > the callbacks that the AuthenticateCallbackHandler > implementations need > >>> > > to > >>> > > > handle. Specifically, unless the unsecured functionality is > what is > >>> > > > desired, the two configuration values [listener.name.sasl_ssl. > >>> > > oauthbearer. > >>> > > > ]sasl.login.callback.handler.class and > >>> > > > > listener.name.sasl_ssl.oauthbearer.sasl.server.callback.handler.class > >>> > > > define the callback handlers that need to handle > >>> > OAuthBearerTokenCallback > >>> > > > and OAuthBearerValidatorCallback, respectively. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Regarding the third question, yes, I see your point that the way > the > >>> > spec > >>> > > > is worded could be taken to imply that the error code is a single > >>> > > > character: "A single ASCII..." ( > >>> > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-5.2). However, it > is not > >>> > a > >>> > > > single character. See the end of that section 5.2 for an > example that > >>> > > > shows "error":"invalid_request" as the response. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thanks again for the +1 vote, Jun, and please do let me know if > I can > >>> > > cover > >>> > > > anything else. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Ron > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Hi, Ron, > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 from me. Just a few minor comments > below. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > 1. It seems that we can translate an OAuth token to a > principle name > >>> > > > > through the claim name configured in JASS. However, it's not > clear to > >>> > > me > >>> > > > > how an OAuth token is mapped to a claim. Could you clarify > that? > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > 2. The wiki has the following code. It seems that > >>> > > > OAuthBearerTokenCallback > >>> > > > > should implement AuthenticateCallbackHandler? Ditto > >>> > > > > for OAuthBearerValidatorCallback. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > public class OAuthBearerTokenCallback implements Callback > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > 3. In OAuthBearerTokenCallback, we have the following method. > The > >>> > OAuth > >>> > > > > spec says the error code is a single ASCII. So, should we > return a > >>> > Char > >>> > > > or > >>> > > > > a String? > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > public String errorCode() > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Jun > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Ron Dagostino < > rndg...@gmail.com> > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Hi everyone. I would like to start the vote for KIP-255: > >>> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > >>> > > > > action?pageId=75968876 > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > This KIP proposes to add the following functionality related > to > >>> > > > > > SASL/OAUTHBEARER: > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > 1) Allow clients (both brokers when SASL/OAUTHBEARER is the > >>> > > > inter-broker > >>> > > > > > protocol as well as non-broker clients) to flexibly retrieve > an > >>> > > access > >>> > > > > > token from an OAuth 2 authorization server based on the > declaration > >>> > > of > >>> > > > a > >>> > > > > > custom login CallbackHandler implementation and have that > access > >>> > > token > >>> > > > > > transparently and automatically transmitted to a broker for > >>> > > > > authentication. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > 2) Allow brokers to flexibly validate provided access tokens > when a > >>> > > > > client > >>> > > > > > establishes a connection based on the declaration of a > custom SASL > >>> > > > Server > >>> > > > > > CallbackHandler implementation. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > 3) Provide implementations of the above retrieval and > validation > >>> > > > features > >>> > > > > > based on an unsecured JSON Web Token that function > out-of-the-box > >>> > > with > >>> > > > > > minimal configuration required (i.e. implementations of the > two > >>> > types > >>> > > > of > >>> > > > > > callback handlers mentioned above will be used by default > with no > >>> > > need > >>> > > > to > >>> > > > > > explicitly declare them). > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > 4) Allow clients (both brokers when SASL/OAUTHBEARER is the > >>> > > > inter-broker > >>> > > > > > protocol as well as non-broker clients) to transparently > retrieve a > >>> > > new > >>> > > > > > access token in the background before the existing access > token > >>> > > expires > >>> > > > > in > >>> > > > > > case the client has to open new connections. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Thanks, > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Ron > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >
