That is my concern as well, sending an assertion to the authorization endpoint requires a extension of OAuth to add another parameter or placing it in the client_id which you can do now with the dynamic reg spec if the AS wants to.
Holding up client registration for something that will require an extension to OAuth is overdoing it. We need something for the OAuth spec we have now without requiring clients implement the assertion flow and other extensions. John B. On 2013-08-28, at 12:39 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: > The initial_access_token doesn't assume that it's from the local domain. It > merely assumes that the authorization server accepts the token, which would > be true in the UMA case due to the federation. It could also be the exact > same kinds of mechanisms that the software statement would use to achieve > federation. > > I still don't see how an auth server is going to know about a client's > configuration state with the assertion swap method, since there's no defined > mechanism for sending a JWT assertion to the authorization endpoint. > > -- Justin > > On 08/28/2013 12:35 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >> George, >> >> It would be reasonable for a client to submit an assertion, and obtain its >> own client assertion in return. This is very close to what is happening per >> 2.1, 2.2 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-06 >> >> In this case, the Software Statement is an authorization that is exchanged >> for a client assertion in return. Then the clients authenticate per section >> 2.2 of the JWT spec. >> >> Regarding initial_access_token. This does have some of the characteristics >> I am speaking of. But it is unspecified and the assumption is that it is >> issued by the local domain. This doesn't work in the UMA case because >> that's more like a federated model. Thus the specified software statement >> works because the AS can approve the client software based on name, and/or >> developer, and/or publisher -- whatever trust requires. >> >> Phil >> >> @independentid >> www.independentid.com >> phil.h...@oracle.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2013-08-28, at 9:29 AM, George Fletcher <gffle...@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> I can't say I understand what you mean by a simple assertion swap... but if >>> you are wanting to use a client_assertion flow instead of the code flow >>> then that's something completely different. If you are saying that you want >>> the client_id to represent an "instance" in a stateless way using an >>> "assertion" then that's already possible today. >>> >>> George >>> >>> On 8/28/13 12:23 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>> George >>>> >>>> That case can be solved with a simple assertion swap. We just have to >>>> profile it. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> On 2013-08-28, at 9:20, George Fletcher <gffle...@aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/28/13 12:02 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>>>> Please define the all in one case. I think this is the edge case and is >>>>>> in fact rare. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree, in many cases step 1 can be made by simply approving a class of >>>>>> software. But then step 2 is simplified. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dyn reg assumes every registration of an instance is unique which too me >>>>>> is a very extreme >>>>> If you have a mobile app that needs to do the code flow... which requires >>>>> a client_secret in order to retrieve the access token and refresh token, >>>>> how does the app do this without per app instance registration? >>>>> >>>>> I'd argue that almost all user facing mobile apps will want the above >>>>> flow and that's not a small, rare edge case. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> George >>>>>> position. >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2013-08-28, at 8:41, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Except for the cases where you want step 1 to happen in band. To me, >>>>>>> that is a vitally and fundamentally important use case that we can't >>>>>>> disregard, and we must have a solution that can accommodate that. The >>>>>>> notions of "publisher" and "product" fade very quickly once you get >>>>>>> outside of the software vendor world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is, of course, not to stand in the way of other solutions or >>>>>>> approaches (such as something assertion based like you're after). It's >>>>>>> not a one-or-the-other proposition, especially when there are mutually >>>>>>> exclusive aspects of each. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore I once again call for the WG to finish the current dynamic >>>>>>> registration spec *AND* pursue the assertion based process that Phil's >>>>>>> talking about. They're not mutually exclusive, let's please stop >>>>>>> talking about them like they are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Justin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 08/28/2013 11:17 AM, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>>>>>> Sorry. I meant also to say i think there are 2 registration steps. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Software registration/approval. This often happens out of band. But >>>>>>>> in this step policy is defined that approves software for use. Many of >>>>>>>> the reg params are known here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Federation techniques come into play as trust approvals can be based >>>>>>>> on developer, product or even publisher. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Each instance associates in a stateless way. Only clients that need >>>>>>>> credential rotation need more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Phil >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2013-08-28, at 8:04, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have a conflict I cannot get out of for 2pacific. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think a certificate based approach is going to simplify exchanges >>>>>>>>> in all cases. I encourage the group to explore the concept on the >>>>>>>>> call. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am not sure breaking dyn reg up helps. It creates yet another >>>>>>>>> option. I would like to explore how federation concept in software >>>>>>>>> statements can help with facilitating association and making many reg >>>>>>>>> stateless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Phil >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2013-08-28, at 5:43, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" >>>>>>>>> <hannes.tschofe...@nsn.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here are the conference bridge / Webex details for the call today. >>>>>>>>>> We are going to complete the use case discussions from last time >>>>>>>>>> (Phil wasn't able to walk through all slides). Justin was also able >>>>>>>>>> to work out a strawman proposal based on the discussions last week >>>>>>>>>> and we will have a look at it to see whether this is a suitable >>>>>>>>>> compromise. Here is Justin's mail, in case you have missed it: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12036.html >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Phil, please feel free to make adjustments to your slides given the >>>>>>>>>> Justin's recent proposal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Topic: OAuth Dynamic Client Registration >>>>>>>>>> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 >>>>>>>>>> Time: 2:00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) >>>>>>>>>> Meeting Number: 703 230 586 >>>>>>>>>> Meeting Password: oauth >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> To join the online meeting >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> 1. Go to >>>>>>>>>> https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=269567657&UID=0&PW=NNTI1ZWQzMDJk&RT=MiM0 >>>>>>>>>> 2. Enter your name and email address. >>>>>>>>>> 3. Enter the meeting password: oauth >>>>>>>>>> 4. Click "Join Now". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: >>>>>>>>>> https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=269567657&UID=0&PW=NNTI1ZWQzMDJk&ORT=MiM0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To add this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft >>>>>>>>>> Outlook), click this link: >>>>>>>>>> https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=269567657&UID=0&ICS=MI&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=C6-AjLGvhdYjmpVdx75M6UsAwrNLMsequ5n95Gyv1R8=&RT=MiM0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> To join the teleconference only >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> Global dial-in Numbers: http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc >>>>>>>>>> Conference Code: 944 910 5485 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> <XeC> >>> >>> -- >>> <XeC.png> >> > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
