I believe the IESG was incorrect in their review and what’s in the text now is not what the WG agreed to.
Question is, what’s our next step, then? — Justin > On Jan 6, 2020, at 5:50 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote: > > My take would be that any paramater in the OAuth registy is a OAuth > paramater. > > A client could duplicate those outside the request object for some sort of > backwards compatability but they will be ignored. > > What we have lost is the merge capability. There are some use cases that > could use that to have a presigned object that some paramaters like state are > outside. > > That was not popular with the IESG. > > John B. > > On 1/6/2020 3:04 AM, n-sakimura wrote: >> Up until -12 (Feb 13, 2017), it was using merge + JAR precedence if >> duplicated. >> As of -13 (Mar 30, 2017), it was changed that the server does not have to do >> the merge, at least for OAuth Authorization request parameters. It says >> nothing about other parameters. >> As of -14 (Jul 21, 2017), the wording was further strengthened by adding >> >> The Authorization Server MUST only use the parameters in the Request Object >> even if the same parameter is provided in the query parameter. >> >> So, the entire 6.3 now became >> <>6.3 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-20#section-6.3>. >> Request Parameter Assembly and Validation >> >> The Authorization Server MUST extract the set of Authorization >> Request parameters from the Request Object value. The Authorization >> Server MUST only use the parameters in the Request Object even if the >> same parameter is provided in the query parameter. The Authorization >> Server then validates the request as specified in OAuth 2.0 >> [RFC6749 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749>]. >> >> It says nothing on the non-OAuth parameters that came with the authorization >> request. >> My take on the text is that all OAuth Authorization Request parameters MUST >> be in the request object. >> Behaviors towards other parameters that happens to have come together with >> the authorization request outside of request object will be treated as >> non-OAuth parameters. >> >> Nat Sakimura >> Research Fellow, Nomura Research Institute >> E: n-sakim...@nri.co.jp <mailto:n-sakim...@nri.co.jp> >> T: +81(90)60136276 >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> PLEASE READ:This <read:This> e-mail is confidential and intended for the >> named recipient only. >> If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete >> this e-mail. >> >> From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> <mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org> On >> Behalf Of Justin Richer >> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 2:35 AM >> To: Takahiko Kawasaki <t...@authlete.com> <mailto:t...@authlete.com> >> Cc: Brian Campbell <bcampbell=40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> <mailto:bcampbell=40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org>; oauth <oauth@ietf.org> >> <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>; Nat Sakimura <nat.sakim...@oidf.org> >> <mailto:nat.sakim...@oidf.org> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR) vs OIDC >> request object >> >> For solution [2], this is the behavior that’s required for OIDC today, so I >> would say that’s the New Client behaving like an Old Client in order to talk >> to an Old Server. So in reality, (2) causes the request to be rejected, and >> that’s OK. >> >> I don’t think it’s viable to require parameters to exist inside the request >> object at all times. Nor should we try to enumerate which parameters go >> inside and outside at all times — at least from the JAR/OAuth level of >> things. I think there are too many things that are application and >> deployment specific for us to make this call. The very nature of the request >> object changes for people — some have a static object that’s deployed with >> clients and some have something that the client creates at runtime for each >> request. >> >> If the instead the New Server requires that any parameters duplicated >> between the two places have to match (the OIDC method) or that in a conflict >> the request object values take precedence (the merge method), then problems >> 3-1 and 3-2 go away. >> >> With the merge-and-precedence behavior, which is what I thought that JAR had >> during WGLC, [3-1] is well-defined. The request is processed the same way >> every time because this is a New Server. The client is going to do OIDC’s >> “duplicate” method, so “merge with precedence” is effectively a no-op. >> >> With the merge-and-precedence behavior, [3-2] doesn’t happen because the >> required parameters aren’t required to be in the request object itself. As >> long as the request object is valid, it protects all parameters within it. I >> don’t think it’s up to us to determine what makes sense to put in that >> object. Security guidance is probably a good idea here. >> >> Solution [3] is what Old Clients already do in OIDC today, so that’s what >> already happens and why problem space (3) isn’t a problem. >> >> — Justin >> >> >> On Jan 2, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Takahiko Kawasaki <t...@authlete.com >> <mailto:t...@authlete.com>> wrote: >> >> Thank you, Justin. Actually, I wanted to see someone write a summary about >> what happens in each combination from a viewpoint of both RP and AS with >> regard to backward compatibility (as I told you in other channel just before >> you posted your email ^_^). >> >> So, >> >> (1) New Client + New Server >> No problem will happen. >> >> (2) New Client + Old Server >> [Problem 2-1] If an authorization request contains 'request' or >> 'request_uri' but doesn't have old mandatory request parameters ('client_id' >> and 'response_type') outside the request object, the request is rejected. >> >> [Solution 2] New Client should include the old mandatory request parameters >> duplicately outside the request object. This means that New Client should >> always send old mandatory request parameters duplicately outside the request >> object if it wants to get maximum compatibility. >> >> (3) Old Client + New Server >> [Problem 3-1] If an authorization request contains 'request' or >> 'request_uri' and some "optional" request parameters are not included in the >> request object, AS will interpret the request differently. Imagine what >> happens when optional parameters such as 'scope', 'state', 'nonce', >> 'redirect_uri', 'response_mode', 'max_age', 'acr_values', 'code_challenge', >> 'code_challenge_method' and 'prompt' are not included in the request object >> but present outside the request object. >> >> [Problem 3-2] If an authorization request contains 'request' or >> 'request_uri' and some "mandatory" request parameters ('client_id' and >> 'response_type') are not included in the request object, the request is >> rejected. >> >> [Solution 3] Old Client should include all request parameters duplicately in >> the request object. This means that Old Client should always include all >> request parameters duplicately in the request object if it wants to get >> maximum compatibility. >> >> (4) Old Client + Old Server >> No problem will happen. >> >> - - - >> >> From a Client's point of view, for maximum compatibility, both Old and New >> Clients should put mandatory request parameters outside the request object >> and put all request parameters duplicately inside the request object. >> >> [Problem 3-1] is difficult to detect because the authorization request is >> not rejected. But, if New Server requires that all request parameters >> outside the request object be put inside the request object duplicately, >> [Problem 3-1] is handled as an error and thus client developers can detect >> the problem. >> >> Consequently, introducing the following requirement in "FAPI Part 2, 5.2.2 >> <https://openid.net/specs/openid-financial-api-part-2-ID2.html#authorization-server>, >> 10" to JAR seems a good compromise (as I told before) >> >> shall require that all parameters are present inside the signed request >> object passed in the request or request_uri parameter; >> >> instead of just saying "the authorization server supporting this >> specification MUST only use the parameters included in the request object." >> which will bring about [Problem 3-1]. That is, how about adding a rule like >> "if request parameters exist outside the request object, they must exist >> inside the request object, too."? >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Best, >> Taka >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 12:48 AM Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu >> <mailto:jric...@mit.edu>> wrote: >> I think the nature of the backwards incompatibility is important here. The >> way that things are now, using merge-with-precedence, you have the following >> matrix of compatibility: >> >> >> New Server | Old Server | >> -----------+-------------+--------------+ >> New Client | YES | NO | >> Old Client | YES | YES | >> >> >> If you ask me, this is the right balance for a breaking change. Old clients, >> where the vast majority of the code is, don’t have to change. New clients >> can only talk to servers with the new features, which is the ability to drop >> parameters from the external request. This would apply to both OIDC and >> plain OAuth. >> >> I think we should follow this kind of pattern in the discussions on OAuth >> 2.1, which I think JAR should be a part of/ >> >> — Justin >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 2, 2020, at 3:40 AM, Takahiko Kawasaki <t...@authlete.com >> <mailto:t...@authlete.com>> wrote: >> >> Breaking backward compatibility in this part would mean that OpenID >> Certification given to AS implementations with request_uri support will be >> invalidated once they support JAR. It also would mean that test cases in the >> official conformance suite need to be changed in a backward-incompatible >> manner, which would implicitly encourage that all certified implementations >> should re-try to get certification. >> >> Changing the spec now might need more three to six months, but it would be >> worth considering what we get and lose by saving the months and breaking >> backward compatibility. >> >> Best Regards, >> Taka >> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:14 PM Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com >> <mailto:sakim...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> So, no change is OK? >> >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:01 PM John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com >> <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote: >> I also slightly prefer the merge approach. >> >> There are plusses and minuses to both. >> >> Changing again now that it is past ISEG review and backing out a Discuss >> will add another three to six months at this point, if we can get them to >> agree to the change. >> >> John B. >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 11:29 PM Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com >> <mailto:sakim...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> Correct. The WG supported the precedence approach and even merge just like >> OIDC as it is very useful from the implementation point of view and helps >> with a bunch of deployment patter. >> >> The push back came in from the Ben Campbell’s DISCUSS. >> See >> https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-jwsreq/issues/70/bc-the-current-text-actually-specifies-the >> >> <https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-jwsreq/issues/70/bc-the-current-text-actually-specifies-the> >> >> I am willing to go either way as long as people agree. My slight preference >> is to the original approach. >> >> Best, >> >> Nat Sakimura >> >> 2019年8月29日(木) 6:56 Brian Campbell >> <bcampbell=40pingidentity.....@dmarc.ietf.org >> <mailto:40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org>>: >> FWIW, as best I can remember the change in question came as I result of >> directorate/IESG review rather than a WG decision/discussion. Which is >> likely why you can't find the "why" anywhere in the mailing list archive. >> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:23 PM Filip Skokan <panva...@gmail.com >> <mailto:panva...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> 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 >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 this >> specification MUST only use the parameters included in the request >> object. >> >> 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 this >> specification MUST only use the parameters included in the request >> object.. >> >> 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 <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> <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 <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> >> -- >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >> http://nat.sakimura.org/ <http://nat.sakimura.org/> >> @_nat_en >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> >> >> >> -- >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >> http://nat.sakimura.org/ <http://nat.sakimura.org/> >> @_nat_en >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> <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 > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
