We need to decide if we want to make a change. For security we are location centric.
I prefer to keep resource location separate from logical audience that can be a scope or other parameter. If becomes harder for people to use the parameter correctly if we are too flexible. I would rather have a separate logical audience parameter if we think we want one. John B. On Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 11:41 AM Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com wrote: > No apology needed, Rifaat. And I apologize if what I said came off the > wrong way. I was just trying to make light of the situation. And I agree > that we should not be hamstrung by the process and there are times when it > makes sense to be flexible with things. > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:22 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Sorry Brian, I was not clear with my statement. >> I meant to say that we should not allow the process to prevent the WG >> from producing a quality document without issues, assuming there is an >> issue in the first place. >> Ideally we want to get these identified during the WGLC, but things >> happen and sometimes the WG misses something. >> >> I hear you and agree that this make things difficult for authors. We will >> make sure that this does not become the norm, and we will try to stick to >> the process as much as possible. >> >> Regards, >> Rifaat >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 5:35 PM Brian Campbell < >> bcampb...@pingidentity.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Rifaat. Process is as process does, right? I do kinda want to >>> grumble about WGCL having passed already but that's mostly because replying >>> to these kinds of threads is hard for me and I'll just get over it... >>> >>> As far as I understand things, the security concerns come into play when >>> the client is being told the by the resource how to identity the resource >>> like is described in >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-distributed-01 and using >>> the actual location in that context ,along with some other checks >>> prescribed in that draft, prevents the kind of issues John described >>> earlier in the thread. >>> >>> In cases where the client knows the resource a priori or out-of-band or >>> configured or whatever, I don't think the same security concerns arise. And >>> using such a known value, be it an actual location or logical >>> representation, would be okay. >>> >>> The resource-indicators draft is admittedly somewhat location-centric in >>> how it talks about the value of the 'resource' parameter. But ultimately it >>> defines it as an absolute URI that indicates the location of the target >>> service or resource where access is being requested. A location can be >>> varying shades of abstract and I'd say that using a URI as 'resource' >>> parameter value that's a logical identifier that points to some resource is >>> well within the bounds of the draft. >>> >>> So maybe the draft is okay as is? >>> >>> Or perhaps that's too much to be left as an exerciser to the reader? >>> And some text should be added and/or adjusted so the resource-indicators >>> draft would be a little more open/clear about the parameter value >>> potentially being more of a logical or abstract identifier and not >>> necessarily a network addressable URL? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:18 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef < >>> rifaat.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I wouldn't worry too much about the process. >>>> If it makes sense to update the document, then feel free to do that. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Rifaat >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:08 PM John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes the logical resource can be provided by "scope" >>>>> >>>>> Some implementations like Ping and Auth0 have been adding another >>>>> parameter "aud" to identify the logical resource and then using scopes to >>>>> define permissions to the resource. >>>>> >>>>> Fortunately, we are using a different parameter name so not stepping >>>>> on that.. >>>>> >>>>> We could go back and try to add text explaining the difference, but we >>>>> are quite late in the process. >>>>> >>>>> I agree that a logical resource parameter may be helpful, but perhaps >>>>> it should be a separate draft. >>>>> >>>>> John B. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Richard Backman, Annabelle < >>>>> richa...@amazon.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Doesn’t the “scope” parameter already provide a means of specifying a >>>>>> logical identifier? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Annabelle Richard Backman >>>>>> >>>>>> AWS Identity >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From: *OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Vittorio >>>>>> Bertocci <Vittorio=40auth0....@dmarc.ietf.org> >>>>>> *Date: *Friday, January 18, 2019 at 5:47 AM >>>>>> *To: *John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> >>>>>> *Cc: *IETF oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org> >>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd write-up for >>>>>> draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-01 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks John for the background. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree that from the client validation PoV, having an identifier >>>>>> corresponding to a location makes things more solid. >>>>>> >>>>>> That said: the use of logical identifiers is widespread, as it has >>>>>> significant practical advantages (think of services that assign generated >>>>>> hosting URLs only at deployment time, or services that are somehow >>>>>> grouped >>>>>> under the same logical audience across regions/environment/deployments). >>>>>> People won't stop using logical identifiers, because they often have no >>>>>> alternative (generating new audiences on the fly at the AS every time you >>>>>> do a deployment and get assigned a new URL can be unfeasible). Leaving a >>>>>> widely used approach as exercise to the reader seems a disservice to the >>>>>> community, given that this might lead to vendors (for example Microsoft >>>>>> and >>>>>> Auth0) keeping their own proprietary parameters, or developers misusing >>>>>> the >>>>>> ones in place; would make it hard for SDK developers to provide libraries >>>>>> that work out of the box with different ASes; and so on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would it be feasible to add such parameter directly in this spec? >>>>>> That would eliminate the interop issues, and also gives us a chance to >>>>>> fully warn people about the security shortcomings of choosing that >>>>>> approach. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 4:32 PM John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We have discussed this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Audiences can certainly be logical identifiers. >>>>>> >>>>>> This however is a more specific location. The AS is free to map the >>>>>> location into some abstract audience in the AT. >>>>>> >>>>>> From a security point of view once the client starts asking for >>>>>> logical resources it can be tricked into asking for the wrong one as a >>>>>> bad >>>>>> resource can always lie about what logical resource it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we were to change it, how a client would validate it becomes >>>>>> challenging to impossible. >>>>>> >>>>>> The AS is free to do whatever mapping of locations to identifiers it >>>>>> needs for access tokens. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some implementations may want to keep additional parameters like >>>>>> logical audience, but that should be separate from resource. >>>>>> >>>>>> John B. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/17/2019 9:56 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Vittorio, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The text you quoted is copied form the abstract of the draft itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Authors,* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Should the draft be updated to cover the logical identifier case? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rifaat >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:19 AM Vittorio Bertocci <vitto...@auth0.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rifaat, >>>>>> >>>>>> one detail. The tech summary says >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> An extension to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework defining request >>>>>> >>>>>> parameters that enable a client to explicitly signal to an authorization >>>>>> server >>>>>> >>>>>> about the *location* of the protected resource(s) to which it is >>>>>> requesting >>>>>> >>>>>> access. >>>>>> >>>>>> But at least in the Microsoft implementation, the resource identifier >>>>>> doesn't *have* to be a network addressable URL (and if it is, it >>>>>> doesn't strictly need to match the actual resource location). It can be a >>>>>> logical identifier, tho using the actual resource location there has >>>>>> benefits (domain ownership check, prevention of token forwarding etc). >>>>>> >>>>>> Same for Auth0, the audience parameter is a logical identifier rather >>>>>> than a location. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:32 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef < >>>>>> rifaat.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The following is the first shepherd write-up for >>>>>> the draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-01 document. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators/shepherdwriteup/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please, take a look and let me know if I missed anything. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rifaat >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> <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 >>>> >>> >>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and >>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any >>> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. >>> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender >>> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from >>> your computer. Thank you.* >> >> > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and > privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any > review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender > immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from > your computer. Thank you.*
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
