On 07/02/2019 16:24, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi all,after re-reading token exchange, the resource indicator, and the ace-oauth-params drafts I am wondering whether it is really necessary to have different functionality in ACE vs. in OAuth for basic parameters.Imagine I use an Authorization Server and I support devices that use CoAP and HTTP.1. If a device uses CoAP then it has to use the req_aud parameter to indicate to the authorization server that it wants to talk to a specific resource server. It would either put a URI or a logical name there.
2. If a device uses HTTP then it has to use either the resource
parameter to indicate to the authorization server that it wants to
talk to a resource server, which is identified using a URI, or the
audience parameter, if it uses a logical name.
We were told by OAuth that this is not how the audience parameter is
used. What I understood from the feed-back is that using a parameter
called "aud" in a request to the token endpoint would be interpreted as
a restriction on the audience of authorization servers that are
addressed by this request.
That said, I'm all for alignment, but I'd like the parameter to be aligned with the JWT "aud" claim as well and currently "resource" is URI while "aud" is StringOrURI.
/Ludwig -- Ludwig Seitz, PhD Security Lab, RISE Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
