Well it kind of blows, doesn't it? I wasn't able to find the "why" anywhere
in the mailing list archive around the time this was changed.
My take on satisfying both worlds looks like this
- allow just JAR - no other params when possible.
(which btw isn't possible to do with request_uri when enforcing client
based uri whitelist and the jwsreq 5.2.2 shows as much)
- enforce the "dupe behaviours" defined in OIDC (if response_type or
client_id is in request object it must either be missing or the same in
regular request).
- allows merging request object and regular parameters with request object
taking precedence since it is a very useful feature when having pre-signed
request object that's not one time use and clients using it wish to vary
state/nonce per-request.
I wish the group reconsidered making this breaking change from OIDC's take
on request objects - allow combination of parameters from the request
object with ones from regular parameters (if not present in request object).
S pozdravem,
*Filip Skokan*
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:02, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com>
wrote:
> Filip, for better or worse, I believe your assessment of the situation is
> correct. I know of one AS that didn't choose which of the two to follow but
> rather implemented a bit of a hybrid where it basically ignores everything
> outside of the request object per JAR but also checks for and enforces the
> presence and value of the few regular parameters (client_id, response_type)
> that OIDC mandates.
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:47 AM Filip Skokan <panva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> in an earlier thread I've posed the following question that might have
>> gotten missed, this might have consequences for the existing
>> implementations of Request Objects in OIDC implementations - its making
>> pure JAR requests incompatible with OIDC Core implementations.
>>
>> draft 14 of jwsreq (JAR) introduced this language
>>
>> The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object
>>> duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward
>>> compatibility etc.
>>>
>>> *However, the authorization server supporting thisspecification MUST
>>> only use the parameters included in the requestobject. *
>>
>>
>> Server MUST only use the parameters in the Request Object even if the
>>> same parameter is provided in the query parameter. The Authorization
>>
>>
>> The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object
>>> duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward
>>> compatibility etc.
>>>
>>> *However, the authorization server supporting thisspecification MUST
>>> only use the parameters included in the requestobject. *
>>
>>
>> Nat, John, everyone - *does this mean a JAR compliant AS ignores
>> everything outside of the request object while OIDC Request Object one
>> merges the two with the ones in the request object being used over ones
>> that are sent in clear?* The OIDC language also includes sections which
>> make sure that some required arguments are still passed outside of the
>> request object with the same value to make sure the request is "valid"
>> OAuth 2.0 request (client_id, response_type), something which an example in
>> the JAR spec does not do. Not having this language means that existing
>> authorization request pipelines can't simply be extended with e.g. a
>> middleware, they need to branch their codepaths.
>>
>> Is an AS required to choose which of the two it follows?
>>
>> Thank you for clarifying this in advance. I think if either the behaviour
>> is the same as in OIDC or different this should be called out in the
>> language to avoid confusion, especially since this already exists in OIDC
>> and likely isn't going to be read in isolation, especially because the
>> Request Object is even called out to be already in place in OIDC in the JAR
>> draft.
>>
>> Best,
>> *Filip*
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> 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.*
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
