There are cases where tokens are supposed to be consumed at multiple places and the `aud` needed to capture them. That's why `aud` is a multi-valued field.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:35 AM Torsten Lodderstedt < tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > May I ask you to explain this reason? > > Am 27.03.2017 um 08:48 schrieb Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com>: > > For the same reason that the “aud” claim is multi-valued in JWTs, the > audience needs to stay multi-valued in Token Exchange. Ditto for resources. > > > > Thanks, > > -- Mike > > > > *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org <oauth-boun...@ietf.org>] *On > Behalf Of *Brian Campbell > *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 8:45 AM > *To:* Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net> > *Cc:* oauth <oauth@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt > > > > Thanks for the review and question, Torsten. > > The desire to support multiple audience/resource values in the request > came up during a review and discussion among the authors of the document > when preparing the -03 draft. As I recall, it was said that both Salesforce > and Microsoft had use-cases for it. I incorporated support for it into the > draft acting in the role of editor. > > From an individual perspective, I tend to agree with you that allowing for > multiple audiences/resources adds a lot of complexity that's like not > needed in many (or most) cases. And I would personally be open to making > audience and resource mutual exclusive and single valued. A question for > the WG I suppose. > > The "invalid_target" error code that was added in -07 was intended to give > the AS a standard way to deal with the complexity and reject request with > multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is unwilling or > unable to process. It was intended as a compromise, of sorts, to allow for > the multiples but provide an easy out of saying it can't be supported based > on whatever implementation or policy of the AS. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt < > tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > > > thanks for the clarification around resource, audience and scope. > > > > Here are my comments on the draft: > > > > In section 2.1 it states: „Multiple "resource" parameters may be used to > indicate > > that the issued token is intended to be used at the multiple > > resources listed.“ > > > > Can you please explain the rational in more detail? I don’t understand why > there is a need to ask for access tokens, which are good for multiple > resources at once. This is a request type more or less exclusively used in > server to server scenarios, right? So the only reason I can think of is > call reduction. > > > > On the other side, this feature increases the AS's complexity, e.g. its > policy may prohibit to issue tokens for multiple resources in general or > the particular set the client is asking for. How shall the AS handles such > cases? > > > > And it is getting even more complicated given there could also be multiple > audience values and the client could mix them: > > > > "Multiple "audience" parameters > > may be used to indicate that the issued token is intended to be > > used at the multiple audiences listed. The "audience" and > > "resource" parameters may be used together to indicate multiple > > target services with a mix of logical names and physical > > locations.“ > > > > And in the end the client may add some scope values to the „meal“, which > brings us to > > > > „Effectively, the requested access rights of the > > token are the cartesian product of all the scopes at all the target > > services." > > > > I personally would suggest to drop support for multiple audience and > resource parameters and make audience and resource mutual exclusive. I > think this is sufficient and much easier to implement. > > > > kind regards, > > Torsten. > > > > > > Am 11.01.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com > >: > > > > Draft -07 of "OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange" has been published. The primary > change in -07 is the addition of a description of the relationship between > audience/resource/scope, which was a request or comment that came up during > the f2f meeting in Seoul. > > Excerpted from the Document History: > > -07 > > o Fixed typo (desecration -> discretion). > o Added an explanation of the relationship between scope, audience > and resource in the request and added an "invalid_target" error > code enabling the AS to tell the client that the requested > audiences/resources were too broad. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <internet-dra...@ietf.org> > Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:00 PM > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol of the IETF. > > Title : OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange > Authors : Michael B. Jones > Anthony Nadalin > Brian Campbell > John Bradley > Chuck Mortimore > Filename : draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt > Pages : 31 > Date : 2017-01-11 > > Abstract: > This specification defines a protocol for an HTTP- and JSON- based > Security Token Service (STS) by defining how to request and obtain > security tokens from OAuth 2.0 authorization servers, including > security tokens employing impersonation and delegation. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07 > > > 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. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Nat Sakimura Chairman of the Board, OpenID Foundation
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
