Nat -

your blog posting is helpful to those of us who are looking for a minimal extension of OAuth with an authenticator. Many implementors are seeking a modest extension of OAuth, not an entire new protocol stack. I believe that is the point of Phil Hunt's proposal to the OAuth committee.

I do have some questions for about the statements made in the blog -

A) Can you direct me to a single OpenID Connect draft specification document where steps 1 and 2 are described?

B) If I implement steps 1 and 2, do I then have a conformant OpenID Connect implementation? Are there no
other MTI protocol exchanges in OpenID Connect?

Thanks,
prateek



I have written a short blog post titled "Write an OpenID Connect server in three simple steps <http://nat.sakimura.org/2013/07/28/write-openid-connect-server-in-three-simple-steps/>".

Really, there is not much you need to on top of OAuth 2.0.

It puzzles me why you need to create a draft with only minor variances in parameter names.

    e.g.,
    session instead of id_token
    lat instead of iat
    alv instead of acr
    etc.


If you change those parameter names, you will have a conformant profile of OpenID Connect.

Nat


2013/7/31 John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>>

    Connect dosen't require a userinfo endpoint.   It is required for
    interoperability if you are building an open IdP.   For an
    enterprise type deployment discovery, registration, userifo are
    all optional.

    The server is required to pass the nonce which is equivalent to a
    request ID through to the JWT if the client sends it in the request.

    Justin is correct.

    John B.

    On 2013-07-30, at 5:30 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com
    <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>> wrote:

    Forgot reply all.

    Phil

    Begin forwarded message:

    *From:* Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com
    <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>>
    *Date:* 30 July, 2013 17:25:46 GMT+02:00
    *To:* "Richer, Justin P." <jric...@mitre.org
    <mailto:jric...@mitre.org>>
    *Subject:* *Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for
    draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt*

    The whole point is authn only. Many do not want or need the
    userinfo endpoint.

    Phil

    On 2013-07-30, at 17:17, "Richer, Justin P." <jric...@mitre.org
    <mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote:

    What do you mean? You absolutely can implement a compliant OIDC
    server nearly as simply as this. The things that you're missing
    I think are necessary for basic interoperable functionality,
    and are things that other folks using OAuth for authentication
    have also implemented. Namely:

     - Signing the ID token (OIDC specifies the RS256 flavor of
    JWS, which is easy to do with JWT). Without a signed and
    verifiable ID token or equivalent, you're asking for all kinds
    of token injection problems.
     - Session management requests (max auth age, auth time)
     - Not fall over with other parameters that you don't support
    (display, prompt, etc).

    See here for more information:

    http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-messages-1_0.html#ServerMTI

    Additionally, something that's really important to support is
    the User Info Endpoint, so you can actually get user profile
    information beyond just the simple "someone was here" claim --
    this was the real value of Facebook Connect from an RP's
    perspective. Some people will probably want to use SCIM for
    this, too, and that's fine.

     -- Justin

    On Jul 30, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com
    <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>>
     wrote:

    The oidc specs do not allow this simple an implementation. The
    spec members have not shown interest in making changes as they
    say they are too far down the road.

    I have tried to make my draft as close as possible to oidc but
    maybe it shouldn't be clarity wise. I am interested in what
    the group feels is clearest.

    From an ietf perspective the concern is improper use of the
    6749 for authn. Is this a bug or gap we need to address?

    Phil

    On 2013-07-30, at 16:46, "Richer, Justin P."
    <jric...@mitre.org <mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote:

    From what I read, you've defined something that uses an OAuth
    2 code flow to get an extra token which is specified as a
    JWT. You named it "session_token" instead of "id_token", and
    you've left off the User Information Endpoint -- but other
    than that, this is exactly the Basic Client for OpenID
    Connect. In other words, if you change the names on things
    you've got OIDC, but without the capabilities to go beyond a
    very basic "hey there's a user here" claim. This is the same
    place that OpenID 2.0 started, and it was very, very quickly
    extended with SREG, AX, PAPE, and others for it to be useful
    in the real world of distributed logins. You've also left out
    discovery and registration which are required for distributed
    deployments, but I'm guessing that those would be modular
    components that could be added in (like they are in OIDC).

    I've heard complaints that OIDC is complicated, but it's
    really not. Yes, I agree that the giant stack of documents is
    intimidating and in my opinion it's a bit of a mess with
    Messages and Standard split up (but I lost that argument
    years ago). However, at the core, you've got an OAuth2
    authorization server that spits out access tokens and id
    tokens. The id token is a JWT with some known claims (iss,
    sub, etc) and is issued along side the access token, and its
    audience is the *client* and not the *protected resource*.
    The access token is a regular old access token and its format
    is undefined (so you can use it with an existing OAuth2
    server setup, like we have), and it can be used at the User
    Info Endpoint to get profile information about the user who
    authenticated. It could also be used for other services if
    your AS/IdP protects multiple things.

    So I guess what I'm missing is what's the value proposition
    in this spec when we have something that can do this already?
    And this doesn't seem to do anything different (apart from
    syntax changes)?

     -- Justin

    On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:14 AM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com
    <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>> wrote:

    FYI.  I have been noticing a substantial number of sites
    acting as OAuth Clients using OAuth to authenticate users.

    I know several of us have blogged on the issue over the past
    year so I won't re-hash it here.  In short, many of us
    recommended OIDC as the correct methodology.

    Never-the-less, I've spoken with a number of service
    providers who indicate they are not ready to make the jump
    to OIDC, yet they agree there is a desire to support
    authentication only (where as OIDC does IDP-like services).

    This draft is intended as a minimum authentication only
    specification.  I've tried to make it as compatible as
    possible with OIDC.

    For now, I've just posted to keep track of the issue so we
    can address at the next re-chartering.

    Happy to answer questions and discuss.

    Phil

    @independentid
    www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com/>
    phil.h...@oracle.com <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>





    Begin forwarded message:

    *From: *internet-dra...@ietf.org
    <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>
    *Subject: **New Version Notification for
    draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt*
    *Date: *29 July, 2013 9:49:41 AM GMT+02:00
    *To: *Phil Hunt <phil.h...@yahoo.com
    <mailto:phil.h...@yahoo.com>>, Phil Hunt
    <n...@ietfa.amsl.com <mailto:n...@ietfa.amsl.com>>, Phil
    Hunt <>


    A new version of I-D, draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt
    has been successfully submitted by Phil Hunt and posted to the
    IETF repository.

    Filename:draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c
    Revision:00
    Title:OAuth 2.0 User Authentication For Client
    Creation date:2013-07-29
    Group:Individual Submission
    Number of pages: 9
    URL:
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00.txt
    Status:
    http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c
    Htmlized:
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c-00


    Abstract:
      This specification defines a new OAuth2 endpoint that
    enables user
      authentication session information to be shared with client
      applications.




    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 <http://tools.ietf.org/>.

    The IETF Secretariat


    _______________________________________________
    OAuth mailing list
    OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth


    _______________________________________________
    OAuth mailing list
    OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth


    _______________________________________________
    OAuth mailing list
    OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth




--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to