Sure that can done.. Do you see any issues having discuss that under the same spec.. The purpose of both are the same. Only the actor differs.
Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Todd W Lainhart <lainh...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > If you would like to see the RO-initiated token revocation go through > (not grant revocation, mind you -- that's related, but different), then I > would suggest that you start specifying exactly how that works. > > +1 > > * > > > Todd Lainhart > Rational software > IBM Corporation > 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-1250** > 1-978-899-4705 > 2-276-4705 (T/L) > lainh...@us.ibm.com* > > > > > From: Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> > To: Prabath Siriwardena <prab...@wso2.com>, > Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org> > Date: 02/06/2013 10:21 AM > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] A question on token revocation. > Sent by: oauth-boun...@ietf.org > ------------------------------ > > > > > On 02/06/2013 10:13 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Justin Richer > <*jric...@mitre.org*<jric...@mitre.org>> > wrote: > These are generally handled through a user interface where the RO is > authenticated directly to the AS, and there's not much need for a > "protocol" here, in practice. > > Why do you think leaving access token revocation by RO to a proprietary > API is a good practice ? IMO this an essential requirement in API security. > I think it makes more sense in the same way that having a "proprietary" > UI/API for managing the user consent makes sense: unless you're doing a > fully dynamic end-to-end system like UMA, then there's not much value in > trying to squeeze disparate systems into the same mold, since they won't be > talking to each other anyway. > > And since you refer to it as an "API", what will the RO be using to call > this API? Is there a token management client that's separate from the OAuth > client? > > > IMHO token revocation done my RO is more practical than token revocation > done by the Client. > They're both valid but require different kinds of protocols and > considerations. This token revocation draft is meant to solve one problem, > and that doesn't mean it can or should solve other seemingly related > problems. > > If you would like to see the RO-initiated token revocation go through (not > grant revocation, mind you -- that's related, but different), then I would > suggest that you start specifying exactly how that works. I predict it will > be problematic in practice, though, as the RO often doesn't actually have > direct access to the token itself. > > > There are larger applications, like UMA, that have client and PR > provisioning that would allow for this to be managed somewhat > programmatically, but even in that case you're still generally doing token > revocation by a "client" in some fashion. In UMA, though, several different > pieces can play the role of a "client" at different parts of the process. > > Revoking a scope is a whole different mess. Generally, you'd want to just > revoke an existing token and make a new authorization grant with lower > access if you don't want that client getting that scope anymore. If you > just want to downscope for a single transaction, you can already do that > with either the refresh token or token chaining approaches, depending on > where in the process you are. The latter of these are both client-focused, > though, and the RO doesn't have a direct hand in it at this point. > > Why do you think it a mess. If you revoke the entire token then Client > needs to go through the complete OAuth flow - and also needs to get the > user consent. If RO can downgrade the scope, then we restrict API access > by the client at RS end and its transparent to the client. > > > Downgrading the scope of tokens in the wild is hardly transparent to the > client (stuff that it expects to work will suddenly start to fail, meaning > that most clients will throw out the token and try to get a new one), and > in a distributed system you've got to propagate that change to the RS. If > you bake the scopes into the token itself (which many do) then you actually > *can't* downgrade a single token, anyway. > > -- Justin > > Thanks & regards, > -Prabath > > > > -- Justin > > > On 02/06/2013 04:35 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: > I am sorry if this was already discussed in this list.. > > Looking at [1] it only talks about revoking the access token from the > client. > > How about the resource owner..? > > There can be cases where resource owner needs to revoke an authorized > access token from a given client. Or revoke an scope.. > > How are we going to address these requirements..? Thoughts appreciated... > > [1] > *http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-04*<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-04> > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Prabath > > Mobile : *+94 71 809 6732* <%2B94%2071%20809%206732> > * > **http://blog.facilelogin.com* <http://blog.facilelogin.com/>* > **http://RampartFAQ.com* <http://rampartfaq.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > *OAuth@ietf.org* <OAuth@ietf.org> > *https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > > > > > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Prabath > > Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 > * > **http://blog.facilelogin.com* <http://blog.facilelogin.com/>* > **http://RampartFAQ.com* <http://rampartfaq.com/> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
