I also agree that “resource” should be a specific network-addressable URL whereas a separate audience parameter (like “aud” in JWTs) can refer to one or more logical resources. They are different, if related, things.
Note that the ACE WG is proposing to register a logical audience parameter “req_aud” in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-01 - partly based on feedback from OAuth WG members. This is a general OAuth parameter, which any OAuth deployment will be able to use. I therefore believe that no changes are needed to draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators, as the logical audience work is already happening in another draft. -- Mike From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John Bradley Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 9:01 AM To: Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> Cc: Vittorio Bertocci <Vittorio=40auth0....@dmarc.ietf.org>; IETF oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-01 We need to decide if we want to make a change. For security we are location centric. I prefer to keep resource location separate from logical audience that can be a scope or other parameter. If becomes harder for people to use the parameter correctly if we are too flexible. I would rather have a separate logical audience parameter if we think we want one. John B. On Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 11:41 AM Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com<mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com> wrote: No apology needed, Rifaat. And I apologize if what I said came off the wrong way. I was just trying to make light of the situation. And I agree that we should not be hamstrung by the process and there are times when it makes sense to be flexible with things. On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:22 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.i...@gmail.com<mailto:rifaat.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: Sorry Brian, I was not clear with my statement. I meant to say that we should not allow the process to prevent the WG from producing a quality document without issues, assuming there is an issue in the first place. Ideally we want to get these identified during the WGLC, but things happen and sometimes the WG misses something. I hear you and agree that this make things difficult for authors. We will make sure that this does not become the norm, and we will try to stick to the process as much as possible. Regards, Rifaat On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 5:35 PM Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com<mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>> wrote: Thanks Rifaat. Process is as process does, right? I do kinda want to grumble about WGCL having passed already but that's mostly because replying to these kinds of threads is hard for me and I'll just get over it... As far as I understand things, the security concerns come into play when the client is being told the by the resource how to identity the resource like is described in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-distributed-01 and using the actual location in that context ,along with some other checks prescribed in that draft, prevents the kind of issues John described earlier in the thread. In cases where the client knows the resource a priori or out-of-band or configured or whatever, I don't think the same security concerns arise. And using such a known value, be it an actual location or logical representation, would be okay. The resource-indicators draft is admittedly somewhat location-centric in how it talks about the value of the 'resource' parameter. But ultimately it defines it as an absolute URI that indicates the location of the target service or resource where access is being requested. A location can be varying shades of abstract and I'd say that using a URI as 'resource' parameter value that's a logical identifier that points to some resource is well within the bounds of the draft. So maybe the draft is okay as is? Or perhaps that's too much to be left as an exerciser to the reader? And some text should be added and/or adjusted so the resource-indicators draft would be a little more open/clear about the parameter value potentially being more of a logical or abstract identifier and not necessarily a network addressable URL? On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:18 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.i...@gmail.com<mailto:rifaat.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: I wouldn't worry too much about the process. If it makes sense to update the document, then feel free to do that. Regards, Rifaat On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:08 PM John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote: Yes the logical resource can be provided by "scope" Some implementations like Ping and Auth0 have been adding another parameter "aud" to identify the logical resource and then using scopes to define permissions to the resource. Fortunately, we are using a different parameter name so not stepping on that.. We could go back and try to add text explaining the difference, but we are quite late in the process. I agree that a logical resource parameter may be helpful, but perhaps it should be a separate draft. John B. On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Richard Backman, Annabelle <richa...@amazon.com<mailto:richa...@amazon.com>> wrote: Doesn’t the “scope” parameter already provide a means of specifying a logical identifier? -- Annabelle Richard Backman AWS Identity From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Vittorio Bertocci <Vittorio=40auth0....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40auth0....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Date: Friday, January 18, 2019 at 5:47 AM To: John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> Cc: IETF oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-01 Thanks John for the background. I agree that from the client validation PoV, having an identifier corresponding to a location makes things more solid. That said: the use of logical identifiers is widespread, as it has significant practical advantages (think of services that assign generated hosting URLs only at deployment time, or services that are somehow grouped under the same logical audience across regions/environment/deployments). People won't stop using logical identifiers, because they often have no alternative (generating new audiences on the fly at the AS every time you do a deployment and get assigned a new URL can be unfeasible). Leaving a widely used approach as exercise to the reader seems a disservice to the community, given that this might lead to vendors (for example Microsoft and Auth0) keeping their own proprietary parameters, or developers misusing the ones in place; would make it hard for SDK developers to provide libraries that work out of the box with different ASes; and so on. Would it be feasible to add such parameter directly in this spec? That would eliminate the interop issues, and also gives us a chance to fully warn people about the security shortcomings of choosing that approach. On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 4:32 PM John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote: We have discussed this. Audiences can certainly be logical identifiers. This however is a more specific location. The AS is free to map the location into some abstract audience in the AT. From a security point of view once the client starts asking for logical resources it can be tricked into asking for the wrong one as a bad resource can always lie about what logical resource it is. If we were to change it, how a client would validate it becomes challenging to impossible. The AS is free to do whatever mapping of locations to identifiers it needs for access tokens. Some implementations may want to keep additional parameters like logical audience, but that should be separate from resource. John B. On 1/17/2019 9:56 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: Hi Vittorio, The text you quoted is copied form the abstract of the draft itself. Authors, Should the draft be updated to cover the logical identifier case? Regards, Rifaat On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:19 AM Vittorio Bertocci <vitto...@auth0.com<mailto:vitto...@auth0.com>> wrote: Hi Rifaat, one detail. The tech summary says An extension to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework defining request parameters that enable a client to explicitly signal to an authorization server about the location of the protected resource(s) to which it is requesting access. But at least in the Microsoft implementation, the resource identifier doesn't have to be a network addressable URL (and if it is, it doesn't strictly need to match the actual resource location). It can be a logical identifier, tho using the actual resource location there has benefits (domain ownership check, prevention of token forwarding etc). Same for Auth0, the audience parameter is a logical identifier rather than a location. On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:32 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.i...@gmail.com<mailto:rifaat.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: All, The following is the first shepherd write-up for the draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-01 document. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators/shepherdwriteup/ Please, take a look and let me know if I missed anything. Regards, Rifaat _______________________________________________ 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<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 _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
