So you want a service where the RS can call an HTTP endpoint to see if
the token is alive or not? That sounds like an awesome idea! Very useful
for a variety of use cases that people have already mentioned on that
list. Maybe that service should respond in JSON with, say, { "active":
true } if it's still valid. That's a great start, and that should
obviously be MTI.
But while we're there, we probably want to know what else the token is
for, since this service will probably know that, so let's add in the
"scope" and "client_id" and whatever other meta-information we have
about the token. If this endpoint doesn't have that information? Well
then, I guess it can't return it. So we need to make sure to be flexible
about that while we define a common core set of semantics. Flexibility
like that is very powerful and could be used in a variety of protocols
and deployments across domains and vendors.
You know, this idea is sounding better and better. In fact, I'll do you
one better. I think this is such a fantastic idea that I wrote it all
down in RFC format:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-oauth-introspection-06
Glad to have you on board, Phil.
-- Justin
On 7/29/2014 9:02 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
I think one alternative to an introspection service is a revocation
status service.
But it is often not needed if token lifetimes are small (minutes /
session life) compared to the refresh token which might last much longer.
Again having info on the case helps explain the requirements of your
case and we can tell what the best pattern is.
Phil
On Jul 29, 2014, at 17:55, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com
<mailto:t.bro...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Try it where? When you're the RS trying to determine whether you
should accept the token or reject it?
Le 30 juil. 2014 02:49, "Mike Jones" <michael.jo...@microsoft.com
<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> a écrit :
Yes, but that's the simplest thing to determine -- try the token
and see whether it works or not.
*From:*Thomas Broyer [mailto:t.bro...@gmail.com
<mailto:t.bro...@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:43 PM
*To:* Mike Jones
*Cc:* <oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>>; George Fletcher;
Phil Hunt
*Subject:* RE: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of
"OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item
Decoding a token with a specific format wouldn't tell you whether
the token is still live: it could have been revoked before its
expiration.
Le 30 juil. 2014 02:16, "Mike Jones" <michael.jo...@microsoft.com
<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> a écrit :
Did you consider standardizing the access token format within
that deployment so all the parties that needed to could
understand it, rather requiring an extra round trip to an
introspection endpoint so as to be able to understand things
about it?
I realize that might or might not be practical in some cases, but
I haven't heard that alternative discussed, so I thought I'd
bring it up.
I also second Phil's comment that it would be good to understand
the use cases that this is intended to solve before embarking on
a particular solution path.
-- Mike
*From:*OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org
<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *George Fletcher
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:25 PM
*To:* Phil Hunt; Thomas Broyer
*Cc:* oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Confirmation: Call for Adoption of
"OAuth Token Introspection" as an OAuth Working Group Item
We also have a use case where the AS is provided by a partner and
the RS is provided by AOL. Being able to have a standardized way
of validating and getting data about the token from the AS would
make our implementation much simpler as we can use the same
mechanism for all Authorization Servers and not have to implement
one off solutions for each AS.
Thanks,
George
On 7/28/14, 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
/t?.ma.b?wa.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 <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
