Hi Atul, I'm just starting to review the transaction tokens draft and have only a minimal understanding of the token exchange document at this point so I'm lacking a little background, but I have a few comments and questions below.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:39 AM Atul Tulshibagwale <a...@sgnl.ai> wrote: > Hi all, > We had a meeting today (notes here > <https://hackmd.io/@rpc-sec-wg/HJNXYKkk0>) in which we discussed the > question of what we should do if there is no incoming (external) token in > the request to issue a Transaction Token > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens/> > (TraT). We identified a few circumstances under which this can happen: > > - The requesting service is triggered by a non-OAuth based flow such > as email or an internal trigger > - The client of the requesting service uses means other than an access > token to authorize the call (e.g. MTLS) > > [Joe] I think there will be a fair number of systems that support means of authorizing non-oauth flows. > We identified a few possibilities listed below. Please note that the > Transaction Tokens draft assumes that the TraT Service trusts the > requesting service, so all the possibilities below assume this. > > [Joe] yes, you are trusting another part of the system to perform some authorization and inform the token service of the result. > Here are some possibilities we discussed: > > 1. *Request Details*: Put the subject information in the > request_details parameter of the TraT request, and the subject_token value > is set to "N_A" > 2. *Self-Signed Token*: The requester generates a self-signed JWT that > has the subject information and puts that in the subject_token value > > [Joe] I like having signed tokens, but if this is really information just exchanged between two endpoints it may be more work than necessary. > > 1. *Separate Separate Endpoint*: The TraT service exposes a separate > endpoint to issue TraTs when there is no incoming token, and that endpoint > can be defined such that the request does not have a subject_token > parameter. This endpoint is not a profile of OAuth Token Exchange > 2. *Separate Endpoint Only*: Extending the thought above, the > requester can always extract the content of the incoming token into the > "request_details" parameter, so why do we need the Token Exchange endpoint > > [Joe] What do we gain by using token exchange? While it seems that there is overlap between delegation/impersonation it seems that transaction tokens are sort of a superset and contain additional information about the context of the transaction. If it looks like token exchange is too constraining then transaction tokens may just be a different use case. With the understanding I currently have I'd either go with 4. Separate Endpoint Only or 2. Self Signed token. Splitting the endpoints could be valid, but it seems a bit weird for me, if we did decide to do that then probably we wouldn't need to sign the information unless the request is going to traverse multiple systems. > We would like to understand how the group feels about these choices, or if > you have other suggestions / thoughts on this topic. > > Thanks, > Atul > > -- > > <https://sgnl.ai> > > Atul Tulshibagwale > > CTO > > <https://linkedin.com/in/tulshi> <https://twitter.com/zirotrust> > <a...@sgnl.ai> > _______________________________________________ > 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
