A core issue for me is that authentication and access are two separate functions. Some clients want authentication context only. Some want access only, some want both.
If you combine both complexity ensues (such as loss of opaqueness, needing introspection, etc etc). Phil phil.h...@yahoo.com On Jun 5, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Bill Mills <wmills_92...@yahoo.com> wrote: > If you need user info based on an access token the introspection endpoint is > the right way to go. Even so, there's issues with using an access token as > an authenticator and this is a major reason why OpenID is the right way to go > for authn. > > > On Thursday, June 5, 2014 12:42 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > It’s great but some ways but also very limiting if you are counting on > certain requirements to be represented in the access token > > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Torsten Lodderstedt > Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 12:40 PM > To: Bill Mills > Cc: Phil Hunt; oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question regarding draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c > > +1 > > the access token is opaque to the client. That's great! Let's keep it that > way. > > Am 05.06.2014 um 21:20 schrieb Bill Mills <wmills_92...@yahoo.com>: > Can't agree more with the peril of overloading auth information into an > access token. > > On Thursday, June 5, 2014 11:05 AM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > Hannes, the Access Token and ID Token do quite different things and have > different structures and properties. The Access Token is an opaque value > that grants access to resources. An ID Token is a non-opaque JWT security > token that makes claims about the authentication that occurred. You can have > one without the other or you can have both, depending upon the use case. > Thus, trying to move information between them would be problematic in several > regards. > > Also, trying to overload the Access Token to convey authentication > information has been demonstrated in practice to be fraught with peril, and > has resulted in some of the most prominent security breaches related to the > misuse of OAuth. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phil Hunt > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:54 AM > To: Hannes Tschofenig > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question regarding draft-hunt-oauth-v2-user-a4c > > You are correct. Just adding to access token would make a lot of devs happy > and that certainly should be discussed. > > Two requirements issues: > > 1. A key use case is passing auth ctx only. An access token means asking for > consent to access something. This causes many sites to loose new users. > Authen only can be implicit consent. > > 2. Compatibility with OpenId ID Token and flows. > > 3. There is a need to support re-auth and MFA/LOA negotiation. Eg web site > would like to obtain a higher level of assurance for a higher risk action. > > The non-tech requirement is the soln must be received by client and service > provider developers as easy to implement in addition to 6749 or even OAuth > 1.1a. I mention it because devs feel this should be trivial. Your suggestion > of adding to access token certainly fits this. > > Phil > > > On Jun 5, 2014, at 0:44, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > thanks for producing this document write-up. I have a somewhat basic > > question regarding the document. > > > > The id token contains the following mandatory information: > > - sis: issuer > > - sub: subject > > - aud: audience > > - iat: issued at > > - exp: expiry > > - auth_time: time when the end user was authenticated > > > > An access token (when encoded as a JWT) may contain all these fields > > except the auth_time (since auth_time is not defined in the JWT spec). > > > > Given that your proposal actually does not define the authentication > > protocol to be used between the resource owner/end user and the > > authorisation server I am wondering whether it would be possible to > > just add the auth_time parameter (and maybe some of the optional > > parameters) to the access token. Then, you can skip the id token. > > > > How do I come up with that question? In Kerberos, for example, the > > above-listed information is carried within a single container (within > > the ticket) and so I am curious to hear why we have to send the > > information twice in OAuth (once in the access token, when the info is > > passed per value, and again via the id token). > > > > Maybe I missing something important here. > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
