Makes sense that we don’t want to further couple AS and RS with grant types. I’m OK if we want a dedicated claim to establish whether the token is resource owner delegated vs client acting as itself.
Subject Type is already a concept in RISC. Just making folks are aware of prior art. https://openid.net/specs/oauth-event-types-1_0-01.html#rfc.section.2.2 https://openid.net/specs/openid-risc-profile-1_0.html#rfc.section.2.1 -Karl On May 6, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Vittorio Bertocci <Vittorio=40auth0....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:Vittorio=40auth0....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: This message originated outside your organization. ________________________________ Fair enough! What others think about it? Exploring the approach: would we want a bool claim or an enumeration, e.g. sub_type = [ resource_owner | client ] ? On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 12:35 PM Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladi...@connect2id.com<mailto:vladi...@connect2id.com>> wrote: Hi Vittorio, On 06/05/2019 22:22, Vittorio Bertocci wrote: > It is true that the grant_type is a client side consideration. I did think > about the "client_id==sub" heuristic, but that's not always applicable: > many systems have their own rules for generating sub, and in case they want > to prevent tracking across RSes the sub might be generated ad-hoc for that > particular RS. > Would you prefer to have a dedicated claim that distinguish between user > and app tokens rather than reusing grant_type? A dedicated claim to flag client_id effectively == sub would be preferable, and much easier for RS developers to process. The AS is the authority and has all the knowledge to set / indicate this. I want to keep RS developers away from having to deal with grant types and having to make decisions whether client_id effectively == sub. Vladimir > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 12:16 PM Vladimir Dzhuvinov > <vladi...@connect2id.com<mailto:vladi...@connect2id.com>> > wrote: > >> On 06/05/2019 20:32, Vittorio Bertocci wrote: >>> To that end, *Karl MCGuinness suggested that we include >>> grant_type as a return claim, which the RS could use to the same >> effect*. I >>> find the proposal very clever, and the people at IIW thought so as well. >>> What you think? >> The grant type is not something that the RS is really concerned with, or >> should be. Introducing this parameter in the access token will create an >> additional logical dependency, plus complexity - in the system of >> client, AS and RS as a whole, as well as for RS developers. The grant >> type, as a concept, is a matter between the client and AS, and IMO >> should stay that way. >> >> Clear language in the spec should suffice. For instance: "If the sub >> value matches the client_id value, then the subject is the client >> application". >> >> Vladimir >> >> -- >> Vladimir Dzhuvinov >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> >> -- Vladimir Dzhuvinov _______________________________________________ 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
