Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXT] Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-burgin-jenkins-identity-chaining-00.txt

2022-11-11 Thread Dr. Kelley W Burgin
1. My understanding from Rifaat’s talk this week is that the token returned from token exchange contains the previous token in the “tokens” claim. So, if the process is iterated, the final token would have all previous tokens embedded in it. 2. Our solution only requires the final PR to process

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXT] Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-burgin-jenkins-identity-chaining-00.txt

2022-11-11 Thread Warren Parad
Does it? That's not what I read from the nested jwt draft. If you could point out where it requires either of those to be true I think it would help the draft authors consider your additional use case. On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:01 AM Dr. Kelley W Burgin wrote: > Thanks Atul. > > > > Warren, > >

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [EXT] Re: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-burgin-jenkins-identity-chaining-00.txt

2022-11-11 Thread Dr. Kelley W Burgin
Thanks Atul. Warren, We see the following two benefits of our solution over embedded tokens: 1. Iterated calls (say PR1 needs to access PR2 needs to access … needs to access PR5, all in different trust domains) do not result in a large final token as they would with embedded tokens 2. Our solu

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-burgin-jenkins-identity-chaining-00.txt

2022-11-11 Thread Atul Tulshibagwale
+Dr. Kelley W Burgin Hi, Kelley would like to respond, so I'm copying him here (he only has the digest of the day) On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 11:08 AM Warren Parad wrote: > I think it would be confusing for implementers to have to figure out the > difference between this implementation and > https: