So, no change is OK? On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:01 PM John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> 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 >> > -- 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
