Just some way I could look at this discussion: One way to separate an AS and an RS is specified by UMA, so for UMA it is required to have a standardized Token Introspection feature.
If there are no other uses for separating AS/RS, then UMA would be the place for standardizing Token Introspection. On the other hand, if there might be other uses for a standardized Token Introspection, then it would make the most sense that it would be made a feature of the set of OAuth specifications. Personally, I've been surprised to find that the main OAuth spec does not specify a standard way to return a token's info. Cheers! Mark On 29/07/14 03:23, Justin Richer wrote: > I think this perspective has a lot to do with your idea of OAuth's > deployment model. You're right in that many people bundle the RS and the > AS very tightly, but that's not always case, nor is it desirable. We're > increasingly seeing cases where a group (often an enterprise) has their > own AS on premises and wants to stand up an RS from a vendor. Without a > means to connect the RS to the AS in a standard way, you're stuck with > using whatever AS the RS vendor wants to sell you along side their RS. > But with the right mechanisms (like JWT and token introspection), you're > able to connect the RS from one vendor to the AS from another vendor, > and it works together. I'm not sure what's unclear, but this is the very > definition of interoperability. > > This is to say nothing of simply being able to locate the RS remotely > from the AS within a particular security domain and still use > artifact-style tokens (ie, tokens that don't encode everything within > them). > > I have already had to deal directly with several cases of RS'es and > AS'es from different vendors doing effectively the token introspection > thing in different ways, in protecting vanilla OAuth within a single > security domain. They were doing it slightly differently for no > compelling reason other than having to invent the "I have a token and > need to look it up" mechanism independently. When both sides were able > to speak the same token introspection protocol (based on the individual > draft I'd submitted), then we could actually make things work. And none > of this was running UMA, which also makes use of this. > > I really don't see JWT as any different. To borrow your statement: In > OAuth, a site may never implement JWT nor may it do it in the way that > JWT describes. Why would that be a problem? (Hint: it isn't, they're > free to do whatever token they want. Same with introspection, it's a > tool that you can use if it makes sense for you to use it. So far a > whole bunch of people have said it makes sense.) > > -- Justin > > On 7/28/2014 8:59 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >> That doesn’t explain the need for inter-operability. What you’ve >> described is what will be common practice. >> >> It’s a great open source technique, but that’s not a standard. >> >> JWT is much different. JWT is a foundational specification that >> describes the construction and parsing of JSON based tokens. There is >> inter-op with token formats that build on top and there is inter-op >> between every communicating party. >> >> In OAuth, a site may never implement token introspection nor may it do >> it the way you describe. Why would that be a problem? Why should the >> group spend time on something where there may be no inter-op need. >> >> Now that said, if you are in the UMA community. Inter-op is quite >> foundational. It is very very important. But then maybe the spec >> should be defined within UMA? >> >> Phil >> >> @independentid >> www.independentid.com <http://www.independentid.com> >> phil.h...@oracle.com <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com> >> >> >> >> On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu >> <mailto:jric...@mit.edu>> wrote: >> >>> It's analogous to JWT in many ways: when you've got the AS and the RS >>> separated somehow (different box, different domain, even different >>> software vendor) and you need to communicate a set of information >>> about the approval delegation from the AS (who has the context to >>> know about it) through to the RS (who needs to know about it to make >>> the authorization call). JWT gives us an interoperable way to do this >>> by passing values inside the token itself, introspection gives a way >>> to pass the values by reference via the token as an artifact. The two >>> are complementary, and there are even cases where you'd want to >>> deploy them together. >>> >>> -- Justin >>> >>> On 7/28/2014 8:11 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>> Could we have some discussion on the interop cases? >>>> >>>> Is it driven by scenarios where AS and resource are separate >>>> domains? Or may this be only of interest to specific protocols like UMA? >>>> >>>> From a technique principle, the draft is important and sound. I am >>>> just not there yet on the reasons for an interoperable standard. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 17:00, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:t.bro...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes. This spec is of special interest to the platform we're >>>>> building for http://www.oasis-eu.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Hannes Tschofenig >>>>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> during the IETF #90 OAuth WG meeting, there was strong consensus in >>>>> adopting the "OAuth Token Introspection" >>>>> (draft-richer-oauth-introspection-06.txt) specification as an >>>>> OAuth WG >>>>> work item. >>>>> >>>>> We would now like to verify the outcome of this call for >>>>> adoption on the >>>>> OAuth WG mailing list. Here is the link to the document: >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-introspection/ >>>>> >>>>> If you did not hum at the IETF 90 OAuth WG meeting, and have an >>>>> opinion >>>>> as to the suitability of adopting this document as a WG work item, >>>>> please send mail to the OAuth WG list indicating your opinion >>>>> (Yes/No). >>>>> >>>>> The confirmation call for adoption will last until August 10, >>>>> 2014. If >>>>> you have issues/edits/comments on the document, please send these >>>>> comments along to the list in your response to this Call for >>>>> Adoption. >>>>> >>>>> Ciao >>>>> Hannes & Derek >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thomas Broyer >>>>> /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/ <http://xn--nna.ma.xn--bwa-xxb.je/> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
