Reply all
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 10:20 AM <oauth-requ...@ietf.org> wrote: > Send OAuth mailing list submissions to > oauth@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > oauth-requ...@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > oauth-ow...@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of OAuth digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Shepherd write-up for > draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-01 (Mike Jones) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 18:19:31 +0000 > From: Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> > To: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.i...@gmail.com>, Vittorio Bertocci > <vitto...@auth0.com> > Cc: Brian Campbell <bcampbell=40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF > oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd write-up for > draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-01 > Message-ID: > < > mw2pr00mb030099e717a31d46bcaa4f9af5...@mw2pr00mb0300.namprd00.prod.outlook.com > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I think that a non-normative reference to ?req_aud? in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-01 should be > added to the resource indicators doc to inform developers that req_aud is > also available to then, and then we should call it a day. > > -- Mike > > From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rifaat Shekh-Yusef > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 5:36 PM > To: Vittorio Bertocci <vitto...@auth0.com> > Cc: Brian Campbell <bcampbell=40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org>; IETF > oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd write-up for > draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-01 > > Thank you guys! > > > On Monday, January 21, 2019, Vittorio Bertocci <vitto...@auth0.com<mailto: > vitto...@auth0.com>> wrote: > Hi Rifaat, > absolutely. Brian and myself already started working on some language, > however this week he is in vacation hence it might take few days before we > come back to the list with something. > Cheers, > V. > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:35 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.i...@gmail.com > <mailto:rifaat.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Brian, Vittorio, > > To move this discussion forward, can you guys suggest some text to make > the logical identifier usage clearer? > > Regards, > Rifaat > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:32 AM Brian Campbell <bcampbell= > 40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > wrote: > As I suggested before, I do think that's within the bounds of the draft's > definition of 'resource' as a URI. And that perhaps all that's needed is > some minor adjustment and/or augmentation of some text to make it more > clear. > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 7:39 PM Vittorio Bertocci <vitto...@auth0.com > <mailto:vitto...@auth0.com>> wrote: > [sent to John only by mistake, resending to the ML] > > In Azure AD v1 & ADFS, that's resource. It could be used for both network > and logical ids, with the concrete usage in the wild I described earlier. > In Azure AD v2, the resource as explicit parameter (network, logic or > otherwise) is gone and is expressed as part of the scope string of all the > scopes requested for a given resource- but it still exist in practice tho > as it still end up in the resulting aud of the issued token. > This is 9 months old info hence > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 17:58 John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto: > ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote: > > What is the parameter that Microsoft is using? > On 1/20/2019 3:59 PM, Vittorio Bertocci wrote: > First of all, it wasn't my intent to disrupt the established process. In > my former position I wasn't monitoring those discussions hence I didn't > have a chance to offer feedback. When I saw something that gave me the > impression might lead to issues, and given that I worked with actual > deployments and developers using a similar parameter for a long time, I > thought prudent to bring this up. I really appreciate Rifaat's stance on > this. End of preamble. > > Ultimately my goal is for developers to have guidance on how to work with > the concept of logical resource in a standard compliant way, hence it > doesn't strictly matter whether the definition of the corresponding > parameter lives in oauth-resource-indicators or elsewhere. > That said. Reading through the draft, it would appear that most of the > reasons for which the spec was created apply to both the network > addressable and the logical resource types: knowing what keys to use to > encrypt the token, constrain access tokens to the intended audience, > avoiding overloading scopes with resource indicating parts... those all > apply to network addressable and logic identifiers alike. And both > parameters are expected to result in audience restricted tokens. It seems > the only difference comes at token usage time, with the network addressable > case giving more guarantees that the token will go to its intended > recipient, but the request and audience restriction syntax seems to be > exactly the same. > On top of this: in the 99.999% of the scenarios I encountered in the wild > in the last 5 years of using the resource parameter in the MS ecosystem, > the resource identifier was known at design time: the developer discovered > it out of band and placed it in the app config at deployment time. Those > aren't fringe cases I occasionally encountered: the resource parameter in > Azure AD v1 and ADFS was mandatory, hence literally every solution i saw or > touched used it. As Brian suggested, this is a scenario where the security > advantages of the network addressable case aren't as pronounced as in the > case in which the client discovers the resource identifier at runtime. This > isn't just because there is no specification suggesting location should be > explicitly indicated, it's because there are many practical advantages at > development and deployment time to be able to use logical identifiers- and > if the concrete security advantages don't apply to the their case, people > will simply not comply. > > In summary: creating two different parameters in two different documents > is better than ignoring he logical identifier case altogether, however I > think that not acknowledging the logical id case in > oauth-resource-indicators is going to create confusion and ultimately not > be as useful to the developer community as it could be. > > > > On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 12:38 Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com<mailto: > phil.h...@oracle.com>> wrote: > +1 to Mike and John?s comments. > Phil > > On Jan 19, 2019, at 12:34 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones= > 40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:Michael.Jones= > 40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > I also agree that ?resource? should be a specific network-addressable URL > whereas a separate audience parameter (like ?aud? in JWTs) can refer to one > or more logical resources. They are different, if related, things. > > Note that the ACE WG is proposing to register a logical audience parameter > ?req_aud? in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-01 - > partly based on feedback from OAuth WG members. This is a general OAuth > parameter, which any OAuth deployment will be able to use. > > I therefore believe that no changes are needed to > draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators, as the logical audience work is > already happening in another draft. > > -- Mike > > From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>> On > Behalf Of John Bradley > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 9:01 AM > To: Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com<mailto: > bcampb...@pingidentity.com>> > Cc: Vittorio Bertocci <Vittorio=40auth0....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:Vittorio > =40auth0....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; IETF oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org<mailto: > oauth@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd write-up for > draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-01 > > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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<mailto: > 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<mailto: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<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>> on > behalf of Vittorio Bertocci <Vittorio=40auth0....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto: > 40auth0.....@dmarc.ietf.org>> > Date: Friday, January 18, 2019 at 5:47 AM > To: John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> > Cc: IETF oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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<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< > 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<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 > > 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<mailto: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._______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/attachments/20190122/f5c4761d/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > ------------------------------ > > End of OAuth Digest, Vol 123, Issue 44 > ************************************** >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
