But the outstanding question is: how do you get the access token to
access the created resource (IE: the Registration Access Token)? You
can't use the client_credentials flow for a client with no credentials!
-- Justin
On 05/31/2013 12:58 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
Yes. I specified the trivial solution to anonymous clients earlier.
Even simpler. You don't need an access token to create a new resource.
You just need one to access one. That is just basic security config.
Phil
On 2013-05-31, at 12:34, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org
<mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote:
I agree that we are going in circles, since I just was going to bring
up my counter argument of "what about clients with no credentials?"
again, which *still* isn't addressed by what you suggest doing,
below. I also believe that getting rid of the Registration Access
Token but using some other token method would actually make the spec
larger, though I'd be glad to review a concrete counter-proposal if
you'd like to write one. And the fact that OIDC is doing it this way,
and considered but rejected the way that you're describing, should
say something to the WG here about whether or not this is the right
choice. Rough consensus and running code, after all.
Regardless, I agree to park this issue and leave the text as is.
We'll move to the next draft in the last call process shortly, as I
have a handful of non-normative editorial changes that I need to
make, thanks to feedback from a few folks.
Again, thanks for your thorough review, Phil, and I look forward to
future feedback.
-- Justin
On 05/31/2013 12:28 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
I disagree.
There is absolutely no need for a registration access token.
Get rid of it and just use access tokens as per 6749. If you can't
follow 6749 and need new issuing methods, what are others to say
regarding inventing new methods?
I have not heard a good reason for the special process or one good
enough to warrant a new method for issuing an access token. Does the
broader group realize this is what the spec says?
Yes, i heard a lot saying OIDC does it this way. But that is a
political reason, not a technical reason. Still, compatibility is
always a strong objective. Even so, oidc could keep using their
method just fine. There is no obligation here to do the same.
The only reason so far was expiry of client creds. Well, why not
require the client to update prior to expiry? It makes no sense to
have another token with longer expiry. B'sides, even expired the
client can re-register from scratch.
Why force the client to persist multiple tokens and creds? That is
far far too complex.
Finally if you get rid of registration access token the spec size
will drop roughly in half IMO. This suggests simplicity to me.
Apologies for my rant. Maybe we should park this for now. We are
going in circles.
Phil
On 2013-05-31, at 11:25, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org
<mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote:
Phil,
We *can* keep it straight just fine, but I just need you to be
clear about which part you're objecting to because the answers are
different. Please use the terms as defined in the document so that
we all know which component we're talking about. I'm sure you'd
agree than in specification work such as this, precision of
language and labels is key for communication between parties. This
is precisely why there's a Terminology section right up front, so
that when I say "Registration Access Token" you can know that I
mean a very specific thing, and when I say "Initial Registration
Token" I mean a very different specific thing. So I'm asking you,
please, use the defined terms so that we can avoid this unnecessary
confusion.
But anyway, what you're talking about below, "the token the client
uses to update is profile" *IS* the Registration Access Token.
That's all that that token is used for. You're not asking for it to
go away, you're asking for it to come from the Token Endpoint
instead of the response from the Registration Endpoint. I don't see
how the client *can* get it from the normal token process without
jumping through specialized hoops to make that happen. I've
implemented the draft the way that it is right now, both client and
server side, and it works. Others have implemented it, too. We've
done interop testing, and it works. This is a proven pattern and
from where I sit there is both rough consensus and running code.
I believe that I've already pointed out how the solutions you've
proposed so far won't work in practice, for various reasons, many
of which have already been brought up and discussed previously. If
you have another way for the client to get its Registration Access
Token, please propose it; but I haven't seen anything yet that will
fly.
-- Justin
On 05/31/2013 11:10 AM, Phil Hunt wrote:
Justin,
This is my primary objection! We can't keep it straight. Their
should be no such thing as a registrstion access token! Just the
token the client obtains to update its profile through the normal
token request process.
Phil
On 2013-05-31, at 10:55, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org
<mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote:
Which token are you referring to here?
If it's the Initial Registration Token, then you could get that
through the normal token server no problem. (The lifecycle
writeups don't call this out explicitly but I would be willing to
do so.) Or you could get it elsewhere. Doesn't matter, just like
it doesn't matter with any other OAuth2 protected resource.
If it's the Registration Access Token, then having the token come
from the token endpoint would require a lot more work and
complexity on behalf of both of the client and server. Either you
end up with public clients getting secrets they shouldn't need or
with granting clients access to the client_credentials flow when
they shouldn't actually have it. Plus it adds extra round trips
which don't buy you anything.
-- Justin
On 05/31/2013 10:15 AM, Phil Hunt wrote:
The preference is to have the access token for registration
issued by the normal token server rather then by the
registration endpoint.
In the current draft it is obtained through a unique process and
must outlive the client.
Phil
On 2013-05-30, at 19:47, "Richer, Justin P." <jric...@mitre.org
<mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote:
I don't understand any of the comments below -- it already *is*
an OAuth2 protected resource without any special handling. Your
access tokens can be short-lived, long-lived, federated,
structured, random blobs ... totally doesn't matter. They are
access tokens being used to access a normal protected resource.
Full stop.
Anything else is out of scope. The lifecycle discussions at the
beginning are merely examples of some ways you *could* use it
and are non-normative and non-exhaustive.
You seem to be asking for something that's already in the draft.
-- Justin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Phil Hunt [phil.h...@oracle.com
<mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>]
*Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:31 PM
*To:* Richer, Justin P.
*Cc:* John Bradley; oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> WG
*Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] review comments on
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-11.txt
Phil
On 2013-05-30, at 16:11, "Richer, Justin P." <jric...@mitre.org
<mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> wrote:
Comments inline, marked by [JR].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Phil Hunt [phil.h...@oracle.com
<mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>]
*Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 5:25 PM
*To:* Richer, Justin P.
*Cc:* John Bradley; oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> WG
*Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] review comments on
draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-11.txt
See below.
Phil
@independentid
www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com>
phil.h...@oracle.com <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>
On 2013-05-30, at 2:09 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
OK, I think see part of the hang up. I have not seen the
scenario that you describe, where you trade a 3rd party token
for a "local" token. I have seen where access tokens are
federated directly at the PR. (Introspection lets you do some
good things with that pattern.)
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth