Agreed as well on this being implementation specific. Also don't remember ever seeing anonymity mentioned as a use case.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > I strongly agree. I don't see what value there is in discussing anonymity > which brings identity into the spec without any justification. > EHL > > On Aug 11, 2011, at 19:26, "William J. Mills" <wmi...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > > It's implementation specific. You can choose to make them anonymous or you > can issue signed plaintext tokens that conceal nothing. The spec doesn't > care. It's a security consideration of the end implementation, just like > the need for tamper protection. The spec needs only to define them as > opaque blobs with a particular syntax. We are not specifying what > encryption you have to use here, and we should not. > > > ________________________________ > From: Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> > Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:45 PM > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens > > Disagree, this was our rational and this is one way it’s used today with our > scenarios. This needs to be assigned an issue. > > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:39 PM > To: Anthony Nadalin > Cc: Dick Hardt; OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens > > The text is wrong. This is not why refresh tokens were introduced > (originally by Yahoo then in WRAP). And is also technically unfounded. > Refresh tokens have no special anonymity properties. > > EHL > > On Aug 11, 2011, at 18:18, "Anthony Nadalin" <tony...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > I’m raising the issue on the current text, I already provided text if the > original append. > > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:03 PM > To: Anthony Nadalin > Cc: Dick Hardt; OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens > > 1. Process-wise it does. This is a brand new concept *here* and was not > mentioned in the charter or any use cases. Therefore, out of scope. > > 2. The current text provides all the information needed to imement. No one > raised an implementation issue on the current text. > > 3. Refresh token do not provide anonymity. An implementation could but this > was never considered in the design. > > 4. If you have suggested text, present it before the WGLC is over. I am not > adding issues to my list without suggested text and wg consensus. > > EHL > On Aug 11, 2011, at 17:44, "Anthony Nadalin" <tony...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > There are no use cases at all in WRAP to help explain choices taken, it does > not matter if there were or were not previous issues raised, it is being > raised now. > > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:46 PM > To: Anthony Nadalin; Dick Hardt > Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens > > That's irrelevant given WRAP does not mention anonymity or anything else > about refresh token not explicitly addressed already by v2. Your email is > the very first time this has been raised on this list. > > EHL > > From: Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> > Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:41:28 -0700 > To: Eran Hammer-lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>, Dick Hardt > <dick.ha...@gmail.com> > Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens > > > Anonymity was certainly part of the design for WRAP > > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:e...@hueniverse.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:35 PM > To: Anthony Nadalin; Dick Hardt > Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens > > Section 1.5 already covers refresh tokens. There are many use cases for > refresh tokens. They are basically a protocol feature used to make > scalability and security more flexible. Anonymity was never part of their > design, and by the nature of this protocol, is more in the domain of the > resource server (based on what information it exposes via its API). In fact, > your email if the first such suggestion of anonymity. > > EHL > > From: Anthony Nadalin <tony...@microsoft.com> > Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:15:28 -0700 > To: Dick Hardt <dick.ha...@gmail.com> > Cc: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens > > > Many reasons, but none are explained in the specification > > From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick.ha...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:51 AM > To: Anthony Nadalin > Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Refresh Tokens > > My recollection of refresh tokens was for security and revocation. > > security: By having a short lived access token, a compromised access token > would limit the time an attacker would have access > > revocation: if the access token is self contained, authorization can be > revoked by not issuing new access tokens. A resource does not need to query > the authorization server to see if the access token is valid.This simplifies > access token validation and makes it easier to scale and support multiple > authorization servers. There is a window of time when an access token is > valid, but authorization is revoked. > > > > On 2011-08-11, at 10:40 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote: > > > > > > Nowhere in the specification is there explanation for refresh tokens, The > reason that the Refresh token was introduced was for anonymity. The scenario > is that a client asks the user for access. The user wants to grant the > access but not tell the client the user's identity. By issuing the refresh > token as an 'identifier' for the user (as well as other context data like > the resource) it's possible now to let the client get access without > revealing anything about the user. Recommend that the above explanation be > included so developers understand why the refresh tokens are there. > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
