Thanks for the reply, Can we also update the KIP about the testing approach?
Thanks, On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:01 AM Kirk True <k...@mustardgrain.com> wrote: > Hi Manikumar! > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021, at 12:59 PM, Manikumar wrote: > > Hi Kirk, > > Thanks for the KIP! > > 1. Do we want to support validating issuers using the issuer uri? > > > Are you referring to validating the JWT was issued by a known, configured > issuer, or something more different/more dynamic? > > The current design allows for optionally requiring that the iss claim > from the JWT match a statically configured issuer from the configuration. > See expectedIssuer under the broker configuration. > > 2. Can the access token be reused for multiple connections from the same > client? > > > That's an excellent question - I will double-check that it is reused. > Hopefully the existing client authentication mechanism supports that level > of reuse. > > 3. Do we support configuring separate ssl configs for connecting > authorization server/jwks endpoint? > > > Yes, that documentation is forthcoming soon. > > It will be a set of configuration options similar to the existing SSL > socket configuration, but specific to the HTTPS endpoint for the OAuth/OIDC > provider connections. > > 4. Do we want support any readable username as principal if it is present > in the token claims > > > Yes. See the subClaimName and principalClaimName configuration options. > Those will allow specifying a claim name other than sub for the principal. > > Now that I'm writing this out I realize that the configuration names are > different on the client and broker for some reason 🤔 I'll change that. > > 5. I agree with Ron, We should move the public classes to > "o.a.k.c.s.oauthbearer.secured" package. > > > Sounds good. I made the change in the KIP. > > Thanks, > Manikumar > > > Thanks for your feedback! > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:46 PM Kirk True <k...@mustardgrain.com> wrote: > > > Hi Ron, > > > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021, at 11:27 AM, Ron Dagostino wrote: > > > Hi Kirk -- thanks for the KIP! Having concrete implementations > > > out-of-the-box will be very helpful. > > > > > > > As seen in this diagram, the login callback is executed on the client > > and > > > the validate callback is executed on the broker. > > > > > > There was no diagram when I looked. Maybe there is a broken link or > > > something? > > > > I double-checked and it's showing for me on the published version of the > > wiki, even after I've logged out. > > > > Would you mind checking again when you get the chance? > > > > > > The name of the implementation class will be > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.common.security.oauthbearer.internals.secured.OAuthBearerLoginCallbackHandler > > > > > > I think the internals package was meant for non-public stuff Most of > it > > > seems that way, although the "unsecured" implementation is in there -- > > but > > > that's maybe a grey area since it isn't meant to be used in production > > > scenarios and is mostly leveraged in unit tests. Perhaps move the > > proposed > > > class into a "o.a.k.c.s.oauthbearer.secured" package? Then any > > > implementation details beyond the public stuff can live under the > > > "...internals.secured" package that you mentioned? The same comment > > > applies to the validator callback handler class. > > > > In a draft I had the secured package directly under the oauthbearer > > package as you describe but I received some out-of-band feedback to aim > for > > parity with the unsecured package layout. > > > > I don't have a preference for either. I do agree that it seems weird for > a > > package named internals to be used in configuration since its name > implies > > that things could change. > > > > > I'm confused by loginRetryMaxWaitMs and loginRetryWaitMs. The former > has > > > "Max" in the name, but only the description of the latter mentions it > > being > > > a max amount of time? Are the descriptions incorrect or perhaps > > reversed? > > > > Yes. Thanks for catching that. I've added more description in a separate > > paragraph above the enumerated configurations. > > > > > > Ensure the encoding algorithm isn't none and matches what the > expected > > > algorithm expecting > > > > > > "expected algorithm expecting" some kind of grammar issue? > > > > Haha! Yes - thanks for catching that too! > > > > It now reads: > > > > > Ensure the encoding algorithm (`alg` from the header) isn't `none` and > > matches the expected algorithm for the JWK ID > > > > > Thanks again -- very exciting! > > > > Thanks for the feedback!!! > > > > Kirk > > > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 3:53 PM Kirk True <k...@mustardgrain.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all! > > > > > > > > I have created a new KIP for a new OAuth/OIDC related authentication > > > > feature. > > > > > > > > This task is to provide a concrete implementation of the interfaces > > > > defined in KIP-255 to allow Kafka to connect to an OAuth / OIDC > > identity > > > > provider for authentication and token retrieval. While KIP-255 > > provides an > > > > unsecured JWT example for development purposes, this will fill in the > > gap > > > > and provide a production-grade implementation. > > > > > > > > Here's the KIP: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186877575 > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Kirk > > > > > > > >
