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 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>: > 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> 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> >> 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.* >> >> > *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 > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) Chairman, OpenID Foundation http://nat.sakimura.org/ @_nat_en
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
