Does the term "Active" help clarify the meaning but still confirm to your intention, Justin?
Best regards, Don Donald F. Coffin Founder/CTO REMI Networks 22751 El Prado Suite 6216 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-3836 Phone: (949) 636-8571 Email: <mailto:donald.cof...@reminetworks.com> donald.cof...@reminetworks.com From: Justin Richer [mailto:jric...@mitre.org] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:16 AM To: Prabath Siriwardena Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02.txt That much I can at least do. I'd be happy with another term if there was a good one we could drop in its place without changing the intended semantics. -- Justin On 02/14/2013 10:57 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: Not quite convinced :-) Valid has a meaning attached to that.. In case we are going ahead with this please define it clearly in the draft - with the one you shared in this thread. Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: On 02/14/2013 09:37 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: The definition of valid is bit ambiguous in the draft... Okay.. If that is the definition... and if we beak that in to parts... "it hasn't expired" : In the response it self we have parameter for issued_at and and expires_at - so whether the token is not expired or not can even be derived at the requestor's end. If the token isn't good anymore, it doesn't matter when it was issued or when it was expired, just that it has. "token was issued from here" : For this IMO we need to send an error code. Requestor has picked the wrong AS. We don't know if it came from another AS or if someone's just making things up. Either way it's not a good token. The remaining is "revoked".. That is why I proposed earlier - we better have an attribute "revoked" - instead of "valid" in the response.. The end result of all three is the same: either the token is good, or it isn't. I think it's much simpler and more useful to leave it at that. -- Justin WDYT...? Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: Because it will be the one that issued the token in the first place. Validity means "token was issued from here, it hasn't been revoked, it hasn't expired". -- Justin On 02/14/2013 09:28 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: Okay. With out knowing the type of the token how can the AS validate the token ? What is meant by the validity there? Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: OK, I don't see the utility in that at all. What would it accomplish? -- Justin On 02/14/2013 09:25 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: To make it clear - my suggestion is to add token_type_hint to the introspection request. It can be from client to AS or from RS to AS. Then AS can decide whether the provided token is valid or not and include "valid" attribute in the introspection response. Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Prabath Siriwardena <prab...@wso2.com> wrote: Both the client and the resource owner should be aware of the token type. My argument is, if the authorization server to decide whether the token is valid or not ( irrespective of who asked the question) - AS needs to know the token type - because to validate a token AS should know the token type. The token type could be, bearer or MAC or any other token type. Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: What exactly are you suggesting be added to introspection? The "token_type_hint" is from the client to the server, but what you've asked for in terms of "token type" is from the server to the client. And there was never an answer to what exactly is meant by "token type" in this case, particularly because you seem to want to call out things like SAML and Bearer as separate types. -- Justin On 02/14/2013 06:59 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: I noticed that the latest Token Revocation draft [1] has introduced the parameter "token_type_hint". I would suggest the same here, as that would make what is meant by "valid" much clear.. [1]: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-05> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-05 Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Prabath Siriwardena <prab...@wso2.com> wrote: Hi Justin, I doubt whether valid_token would make a difference..? My initial argument is what is the validation criteria..? Validation criteria depends on the token_type.. If we are talking only about metadata - then I believe "revoked", "expired" would be more meaningful.. Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: OK, I can see the wisdom in changing this term. I picked "valid" because I wanted a simple "boolean" value that would require no additional parsing or string-matching on the client's behalf, and I'd like to stick with that. OAuth is built with the assumption that clients need to be able to recover from invalid tokens at any stage, so I think a simple yes/no is the right step here. That said, I think you're both right that "valid" seems to have caused a bit of confusion. I don't want to go with "revoked" because I'd rather have the "token is OK" be the positive boolean value. Would "valid_token" be more clear? Or do we need a different adjective all together? -- Justin On 02/11/2013 08:02 PM, Richard Harrington wrote: Have you considered "status" instead of "valid"? It could have values like "active", "expired", and "revoked". Is it worthwhile including the status of the client also? For example, a client application could be disabled, temporarily or permanently, and thus disabling its access tokens as well. On Feb 11, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Prabath Siriwardena <prab...@wso2.com> wrote: I guess confusion is with 'valid' parameter is in the response.. I thought this will be helpful to standardize the communication between Resource Server and the Authorization Server.. I would suggest we completely remove "valid" from the response - or define it much clearly.. May be can add "revoked" with a boolean attribute.. Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: On 02/08/2013 12:51 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: Hi Justin, I have couple of questions related to "valid" parameter... This endpoint can be invoked by the Resource Server in runtime... That's correct. In that case what is exactly meant by the "resource_id" in request ? The resource_id field is a service-specific string that basically lets the resource server provide some context to the request to the auth server. There have been some other suggestions like client IP address, but I wanted to put this one in because it seemed to be a common theme. The client is trying to do *something* with the token, after all, and the rights, permissions, and metadata associated with the token could change based on that. Since the Introspection endpoint is all about getting that metadata back to the PR, this seemed like a good idea. IMO a token to be valid depends on set of criteria based on it's type.. For a Bearer token.. 1. Token should not be expired 2. Token should not be revoked. 3. The scope the token issued should match with the scope required for the resource. For a MAC token... 1. Token not expired (mac id) 2. Token should not be revoked 3. The scope the token issued should match with the scope required for the resource. 4. HMAC check should be valid There are similar conditions for SAML bearer too.. This isn't really true. The SAML bearer token is fully self-contained and doesn't change based on other parameters in the message, unlike MAC. Same with JWT. When it hands a SAML or JWT token to the AS, the PR has given *everything* the server needs to check that token's validity and use. MAC signatures change with every message, and they're done across several components of the HTTP message. Therefor, the HMAC check for MAC style tokens will still need to be done by the protected resource. Introspection would help in the case that the signature validated just fine, but the token might have expired. Or you need to know what scopes apply. Introspection isn't to fully validate the call to the protected resource -- if that were the case, the PR would have to send some kind of encapsulated version of the original request. Otherwise, the AS won't have all of the information it needs to check the MAC. I think what you're describing is ultimately *not* what the introspection endpoint is intended to do. If that's unclear from the document, can you please suggest text that would help clear the use case up? I wouldn't want it to be ambiguous. -- Justin Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: It validates the token, which would be either the token itself in the case of Bearer or the token "id" part of something more complex like MAC. It doesn't directly validate the usage of the token, that's still up to the PR to do that. I nearly added a "token type" field in this draft, but held back because there are several kinds of "token type" that people talk about in OAuth. First, there's "Bearer" vs. "MAC" vs. "HOK", or what have you. Then within Bearer you have "JWT" or "SAML" or "unstructured blob". Then you've also got "access" vs. "refresh" and other flavors of token, like the id_token in OpenID Connect. Thing is, the server running the introspection endpoint will probably know *all* of these. But should it tell the client? If so, which of the three, and what names should the fields be? -- Justin On 02/07/2013 11:26 AM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: Okay.. I was thinking this could be used as a way to validate the token as well. BTW even in this case shouldn't communicate the type of token to AS? For example in the case of SAML profile - it could be SAML token.. Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: "valid" might not be the best term, but it's meant to be a field where the server says "yes this token is still good" or "no this token isn't good anymore". We could instead do this with HTTP codes or something but I went with a pure JSON response. -- Justin On 02/06/2013 10:47 PM, Prabath Siriwardena wrote: Hi Justin, I believe this is addressing one of the key missing part in OAuth 2.0... One question - I guess this was discussed already... In the spec - in the introspection response it has the attribute "valid" - this is basically the validity of the token provided in the request. Validation criteria depends on the token and well as token type ( Bearer, MAC..). In the spec it seems like it's coupled with Bearer token type... But I guess, by adding "token_type" to the request we can remove this dependency. WDYT..? Thanks & regards, -Prabath On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: Updated introspection draft based on recent comments. Changes include: - "scope" return parameter now follows RFC6749 format instead of JSON array - "subject" -> "sub", and "audience" -> "aud", to be parallel with JWT claims - clarified what happens if the authentication is bad -- Justin -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02.txt Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:24:20 -0800 From: <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> <internet-dra...@ietf.org> To: <mailto:jric...@mitre.org> <jric...@mitre.org> A new version of I-D, draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Justin Richer and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-richer-oauth-introspection Revision: 02 Title: OAuth Token Introspection Creation date: 2013-02-06 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 6 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-richer-oauth-introspection-02 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 -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 <tel:%2B94%2071%20809%206732> http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com -- Thanks & Regards, Prabath Mobile : +94 71 809 6732 http://blog.facilelogin.com http://RampartFAQ.com
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
