You're right that UMA bundles several things in the protection API (covered by the protection scope, whose keyword is actually the resolvable URI "http://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/scopes/prot.json";). One of those things is the use of the token status endpoint; the rest is the whole mechanism for outsourcing protection. Maybe it makes sense for us to define "protection" as a superset scope that includes a smaller scope of "introspection", which would map to using the introspection endpoint being defined in your spec. What do you think?
The permissions that get returned as the result of UMA-style introspection are actually part of the definition of the "bearer" UMA token profile. Other token contents could be profiled specifically for use with UMA, or we could perhaps also reuse OAuth token profiles. The wrapper being defined in your spec for totally generic token metadata seems like a good idea; the innards could be any number of things (with their own unique metadata), such as policy yes/no decisions, the claims gathered, etc. This topic is discussed in the latter part of this slide deck: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/17760302/UMA+and+XACML+2012-10-18.pdf Thanks! Eve On 30 Nov 2012, at 7:56 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: > Hi Eve, > > Yes, you've got the right idea. In a lot of cases that we're dealing with, > the relationship between the RS and AS is set up ahead of time. So the RS > knows which AS to ask, and the AS knows how to deal with the different RS's > it cares about. UMA gives you a nice dynamic way to introduce the two, but I > think that the introduction should be a separate step from the query, since > both parts are reusable independently. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but UMA also has the whole API for returning > permissions associated with a token, beyond just the simple current-status > message, right? Even so, I think it makes sense to decide on what the core > set of info that would come back from such a token introspection would be, > and what it means. Different types of tokens (Bearer, MAC, HOK) are going to > have different types of metadata associated with them, probably, but there > are a few core pieces (expiration, scopes) that would be common and useful. > > -- Justin > > On 11/29/2012 05:59 PM, Eve Maler wrote: >> Hi Justin-- Glad to see this moving forward. This draft seems pretty >> straightforward, and I imagine the UMA core spec could probably incorporate >> a reference out to this rather than continuing to use our custom-specified >> method for what we'd called "token status". I wanted to highlight a couple >> of things we've defined beyond what you have here, in case they're of >> interest to the wider community. >> >> This spec defines what I'd call "shallow AS/RS communication", in that it >> assumes a trust relationship and context that's set up between them >> completely out of band. UMA needed "deep AS/RS communication", which allows >> for them to live in separate domains, potentially run by disparate parties. >> (This is akin to the separation in OpenID Connect of IdPs and third-party >> claim providers, and I've heard of a number of use cases now for the same >> separation in plain OAuth.) Thus, we defined a means by which the AS and RS >> could be introduced -- it's actually just an embedded OAuth flow -- so that >> your mention of a "separate OAuth2 Access Token" option in Section 2.1 is >> dictated in UMA to be an OAuth token, with a particular scope covering the >> use of the token introspection endpoint. >> >> The API exposed by the AS (in UMA, an "authorization manager" or AM) that >> includes usage of the token introspection endpoint is called a "protection >> API", and it includes registration of information about protected resources >> so that the AS can manage the issuance of tokens that it will later be asked >> to introspect. >> >> Finally, UMA has a simple extension point, called "UMA token profile", >> defined in its (JSON-encoded) AM config data that allows the content >> associated with the token to be standardized. Actually it dictates more than >> the content; there are protocol aspects to it too, perhaps akin to OAuth's >> token profiles. >> >> If there's interest in sedimenting some of these pieces into the OAuth >> layer, we'd certainly be interested to carve out modules (where possible) >> and submit them for consideration. Note that all of these features are >> present in our http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardjono-oauth-umacore-05 >> submission. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Eve >> >> On 27 Nov 2012, at 10:46 AM, "Richer, Justin P." <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: >> >>> I took some time this morning to put together a draft of Token >>> Introspection. This is largely based on how we implemented it here a few >>> years ago, and I'm hoping that this and the Ping draft can help move the >>> conversation about introspection forward. >>> >>> -- Justin >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: <internet-dra...@ietf.org> >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for >>>> draft-richer-oauth-introspection-00.txt >>>> Date: November 27, 2012 1:44:01 PM EST >>>> To: <jric...@mitre.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-richer-oauth-introspection-00.txt >>>> has been successfully submitted by Justin Richer and posted to the >>>> IETF repository. >>>> >>>> Filename: draft-richer-oauth-introspection >>>> Revision: 00 >>>> Title: OAuth Token Introspection >>>> Creation date: 2012-11-27 >>>> WG ID: Individual Submission >>>> Number of pages: 6 >>>> URL: >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-00.txt >>>> Status: >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection >>>> Htmlized: >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-00 >>>> >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> This specification defines a method for a client or protected >>>> resource to query an OAuth authorization server to determine meta- >>>> information about an OAuth token. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The IETF Secretariat >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> >> Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog >> +1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl >> >> > Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog +1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
