I also slightly prefer the merge approach. There are plusses and minuses to both.
Changing again now that it is past ISEG review and backing out a Discuss will add another three to six months at this point, if we can get them to agree to the change. John B. On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 11:29 PM Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > Correct. The WG supported the precedence approach and even merge just like > OIDC as it is very useful from the implementation point of view and helps > with a bunch of deployment patter. > > The push back came in from the Ben Campbell’s DISCUSS. > See > > https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-jwsreq/issues/70/bc-the-current-text-actually-specifies-the > > I am willing to go either way as long as people agree. My slight > preference is to the original approach. > > Best, > > Nat Sakimura > > 2019年8月29日(木) 6:56 Brian Campbell <bcampbell= > 40pingidentity.....@dmarc.ietf.org <40pingidentity....@dmarc.ietf.org>>: > >> FWIW, as best I can remember the change in question came as I result of >> directorate/IESG >> review rather than a WG decision/discussion. Which is likely why you can't >> find the "why" anywhere in the mailing list archive. >> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:23 PM Filip Skokan <panva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Well it kind of blows, doesn't it? I wasn't able to find the "why" >>> anywhere in the mailing list archive around the time this was changed. >>> >>> My take on satisfying both worlds looks like this >>> >>> - allow just JAR - no other params when possible. >>> (which btw isn't possible to do with request_uri when enforcing >>> client based uri whitelist and the jwsreq 5.2.2 shows as much) >>> - enforce the "dupe behaviours" defined in OIDC (if response_type or >>> client_id is in request object it must either be missing or the same in >>> regular request). >>> - allows merging request object and regular parameters with request >>> object taking precedence since it is a very useful feature when having >>> pre-signed request object that's not one time use and clients using it wish >>> to vary state/nonce per-request. >>> >>> I wish the group reconsidered making this breaking change from OIDC's >>> take on request objects - allow combination of parameters from the request >>> object with ones from regular parameters (if not present in request object). >>> >>> S pozdravem, >>> *Filip Skokan* >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:02, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> Filip, for better or worse, I believe your assessment of the situation is >>>> correct. I know of one AS that didn't choose which of the two to follow but >>>> rather implemented a bit of a hybrid where it basically ignores everything >>>> outside of the request object per JAR but also checks for and enforces the >>>> presence and value of the few regular parameters (client_id, response_type) >>>> that OIDC mandates. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:47 AM Filip Skokan <panva...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>> >>>>> in an earlier thread I've posed the following question that might have >>>>> gotten missed, this might have consequences for the existing >>>>> implementations of Request Objects in OIDC implementations - its making >>>>> pure JAR requests incompatible with OIDC Core implementations. >>>>> >>>>> draft 14 of jwsreq (JAR) introduced this language >>>>> >>>>> The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object >>>>>> duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward >>>>>> compatibility etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> *However, the authorization server supporting thisspecification MUST >>>>>> only use the parameters included in the requestobject. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Server MUST only use the parameters in the Request Object even if the >>>>>> same parameter is provided in the query parameter. The Authorization >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The client MAY send the parameters included in the request object >>>>>> duplicated in the query parameters as well for the backward >>>>>> compatibility etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> *However, the authorization server supporting thisspecification MUST >>>>>> only use the parameters included in the requestobject. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nat, John, everyone - *does this mean a JAR compliant AS ignores >>>>> everything outside of the request object while OIDC Request Object one >>>>> merges the two with the ones in the request object being used over ones >>>>> that are sent in clear?* The OIDC language also includes sections >>>>> which make sure that some required arguments are still passed outside of >>>>> the request object with the same value to make sure the request is "valid" >>>>> OAuth 2.0 request (client_id, response_type), something which an example >>>>> in >>>>> the JAR spec does not do. Not having this language means that existing >>>>> authorization request pipelines can't simply be extended with e.g. a >>>>> middleware, they need to branch their codepaths. >>>>> >>>>> Is an AS required to choose which of the two it follows? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for clarifying this in advance. I think if either the >>>>> behaviour is the same as in OIDC or different this should be called out in >>>>> the language to avoid confusion, especially since this already exists in >>>>> OIDC and likely isn't going to be read in isolation, especially because >>>>> the >>>>> Request Object is even called out to be already in place in OIDC in the >>>>> JAR >>>>> draft. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> *Filip* >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > http://nat.sakimura.org/ > @_nat_en > _______________________________________________ > 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
