This is the first time this draft has come up on the list so people coming up to speed is to be expected.
In WS-Trust the security tokens are not tied to a single representation. /wst:RequestSecurityToken/wst14:ActAs This OTPIONAL element indicates that the requested token is expected to contain information about the identity represented by the content of this element and the token requestor intends to use the returned token to act as this identity. The identity that the requestor wants to act-as is specified by placing a security token or <wsse:SecurityTokenReference> element within the <wst14:ActAs> element. Is clear that the resulting token contains information about the identity represented by the security token passed as the content of the ActAs element and that the requester wants to act-as is that identity. Depending on the resulting security token that may be represented differently. Nothing explicitly states that the identity of the requester is in the resulting token, however when SAML tokens are used it typically is represented along with the identity to act-as. OnBehalfOf being older was treated as a proxy type request On-Behalf-Of the initial subject resulting in a token for the Original subject that may have been used by another party such as the requester. So Sec 1.3 may be trying to describe composite tokens vs single subject tokens that may be beyond the scope of those token independent parameters in WS-Trust. It is probably fair to say that from the way those parameters are implemented for SAML tokens in many if not all STS the description seems backwards. Having something that describes how the output token varies based on input for typical token types might help make it more concrete for people. John B. On Jul 3, 2014, at 5:55 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> wrote: > ActAs the returned token is expected to be represented by the identity > described by this parameter > OnBehalfOf the request is being made by the identity described by this > parameter > > These terms have been pretty clearly defined in the WS specifications, I > don’t understand the confusion. If section 1.3 is confusing, I’m OK with > dropping this > > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 2:44 PM > To: Phil Hunt > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00 > > I pointed out a problem with the non normative text in sec 1.3 to Mike off > list quite a while go. > > 1.3. On-Behalf-Of vs. Impersonation Semantics > > > > When principal A acts on behalf of principal B, A is given all the > rights that B has within some defined rights context. Whereas, with > on-behalf-of semantics, principal A still has its own identity > separate from B and it is explicitly understood that while B may have > delegated its rights to A, any actions taken are being taken by A and > not B. In a sense, A is an agent for B. > On-behalf-of semantics are therefore different than impersonation > semantics, with which it is sometimes confused. When principal A > impersonates principal B, then in so far as any entity receiving > Claims is concerned, they are actually dealing with B. It is true > that some members of the identity system might have awareness that > impersonation is going on but it is not a requirement. For all > intents and purposes, when A is acting for B, A is B. > > OnBehalfOf "indicates that the requestor is making the request on behalf of > another." and returns a security token to the requestor that contains a > single set of claims. > > ActAs provides a security token/ assertion about subject A in a request from > Requester B and the response is a composite token that has Requester B as the > subject but also includes claims about subject A. > > See MS FAQ to clarify this popular question > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee748487.aspx > > I think this is what Brian was trying to get at. > > If we can't all agree on the semantics of OnBehalfOf (It has been around for > a long time) then we have a problem and should pick different terms. > > The normative text is correct, however sec 2.2 adds an optional "actor" claim > to the initial JWT that is to be presented as the value of on_behalf_of in > the request. That is an addition to the WS-Trust text and took me several > reads to understand that it is not a element in the JWT response. > > I offered to help with the spec as I think it is useful. The semantics are > tricky for people to understand so I was not all that concerned that the > first draft was not perfect. > > I suspect some concrete examples will help. > > John B. > > On Jul 3, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > I suspect it lines up. But Brian’s point may still be relevant. There is > *long* standing confusion of the terms (because many of have different > english interpretation than WS-Trust). Might be time for new terms? > > Impersonate (or even personate) vs. delegate ? > > Those terms differentiate between impersonating a whole person vs. having > delegate or scoped authority to act for someone. > > Sorry if this is an old discussion. > > Phil > > @independentid > www.independentid.com > phil.h...@oracle.com > > > > On Jul 3, 2014, at 12:20 PM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > I’m lost too, as when I wrote this, I explicitly modelled it after WS-Trust. > If there’s a concrete discrepancy you can point out, that would be great. > > FYI, I do plan to refresh this draft too allow for a more flexible trust > model shortly. > > -- Mike > > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Nadalin > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:04 PM > To: Brian Campbell > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00 > > I’m lost, the terms defined in the oauth token-exchange draft are the same > terms defined in ws-trust and have the same definitions > > From: Brian Campbell [mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:02 PM > To: Anthony Nadalin > Cc: Vladimir Dzhuvinov; oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00 > > And I was suggesting that OAuth token exchange align with the WS-Trust > definitions or maybe even define totally new terms. But not use the same > terms to mean different things. > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > The explanation of on-behalf-Of and ActAs are correct in the document as > defined by WS-Trust, this may not be your desire or understanding but that is > how WS-Trust implementations should work > > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Campbell > Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 11:44 AM > To: Vladimir Dzhuvinov > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00 > > FWIW, I am very interested in the general concept of a lightweight or OAuth > based token exchange mechanism. However, despite some distaste for the > protocol, our existing WS-Trust functionality has proven to be "good enough" > for most use-cases, which seems to prevent work on token exchange from > getting any real priority. > > I have a few thoughts on > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00 which I've > been meaning to write down but haven't yet, so this seems like as good a time > as any. > > I would really like to see a simpler request model that doesn't require the > request to be JWT encoded. > > The draft mentions the potential confusion around On-Behalf-Of vs. > Impersonation Semantics. And it is confusing (to me anyway). In fact, the use > of Act-As and On-Behalf-Of seem to be reversed from how they are defined in > WS-Trust (this MS FAQ has less confusing wording). They should probably be > aligned with that prior work to avoid further confusion. Or maybe making a > clean break and introducing new terms would be better. > > I don't think the security_token_request grant type value is strictly legal > per RFC 6749. The ABNF at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#appendix-A.10 > would allow it but according to > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.5 extension grants need an > absolute URI as the grant type value (there's no grant type registry so the > URI is the only means of preventing collision). > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladi...@connect2id.com> > wrote: > Has anyone implemented the OAuth 2.0 Token exchange draft, in particular > the on-behalf-of semantics? We've got a use case for that and I'm > curious if someone has used it in practice. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-token-exchange-00 > > Thanks, > > Vladimir > -- > Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladi...@connect2id.com> > Connect2id Ltd. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
