Hi All, The last email from Brian addresses the multiple audiences/resources issue with an error code, and we did not see any objection to this approach so far.
*Authors,* Are there any other open issues with this draft? Do you believe it is ready for WGLC? Thanks, Rifaat & Hannes On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com > wrote: > As mentioned during the Chicago meeting the "invalid_target" error code > that was added in -07 was intended to give the AS a standard way to reject > request with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is > unwilling or unable to process based on policy or whatever criteria . It > was intended as a compromise, of sorts, to allow for the multiple > resources/audiences in the request but provide an easy out for the AS of > saying it can't be supported based on whatever implementation or security > or policy it has. > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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-exchang >>> e-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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
