I say that it's only theoretical because I don't believe there are any actual deployments supporting, or planning on supporting, RO as an assertion issuer.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why RO as an issuer is only theoretical today? > > > *Brian Campbell <[email protected]>* > > 2012-12-04 23:41 > 收件人 > Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> > 抄送 > [email protected], "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > 主题 > Re: [OAUTH-WG] Assertion Framework - Why does issuer have to be either the > client or a third party token service? > > > > > The intent was definitely not to constrain who/what could be the issuer. > But also try to provide > some guidance around the common cases that are actually being deployed > now, which are the client self-issued and STS variants. Resource owner as > an issuer is an interesting case but seems mostly theoretical at this point. > > I feel like mentioning the resource owner there in §5.1 would cause more > confusion than anything else. I'd prefer to just strike the whole sentence > in question and maybe add some additional text to §3 that clarifies that > the issuer can really be any entity, if folks think a change is needed > here? > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Nat Sakimura > <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>> > wrote: > Actually, "The issuer may be either > an OAuth client (when assertions are self-issued) or any other > entity, e.g., a third party > token service, resource owner. " is not really clean. > > OAuth client is just another example of an issuer. > > So, perhaps the sentence could be: > > "Example of issuers include an OAuth client, resource owner, an > independent third party." > > So, the clause becomes: > > Issuer The unique identifier for the entity that issued the > assertion. Generally this is the entity that holds the key > material used to generate the assertion. > Example of issuers include an OAuth client, resource owner, an > independent third party. > > Nat > > Nat > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:40 AM, > <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > Chuck Mortimore <*[email protected]* <[email protected]>> > 写于 2012-12-04 10:26:50: > > > > Please feel free to suggest better language. > > > > > Issuer simply allows the token service to know who created the > > assertion, so it can look them up and see if they're trusted. > > Effectively the same as an Issuer in SAML. > > a conflict : "The token service is the assertion issuer" in assertion > document. > while you said "token service know who created the assertion" > > I wonder if the following text is acceptable: > > Issuer The unique identifier for the entity that issued the > assertion. Generally this is the entity that holds the key > material used to generate the assertion. The issuer may be either > an OAuth client (when assertions are self-issued) or any other > entity, e.g., a third party > token service, resource owner. > > > 6.3. Client Acting on Behalf of a User > > The Issuer of the assertion MUST identify the entity that issued > the assertion as recognized by the Authorization Server. If the > assertion is self-issued, the Issuer SHOULD be the "client_id". > If the assertion was issued by a Security Token Service (STS), the > Issuer SHOULD identify the STS as recognized by the Authorization > Server.If the assertion was issued by the resource owner, the > Issuer SHOULD identify the resource owner as recognized by the > Authorization > Server. > > > > > -cmort > > > > On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:23 PM, > > <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > > > Obviously, it is not so clear from the language there. > > > > > > Chuck Mortimore <*[email protected]* <[email protected]>> > 写于 2012-12-04 10:17:12: > > > > > There's no reason why it can't be resource owner today. > > > > > > On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, > > > <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>> > <*[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1. > > > And why it was not looked at that time? > > > > > > *[email protected]* <[email protected]> 写于 2012-12-04 > 01:30:55: > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is a good time to start looking at the resourse > > > > owner issuing assertions@ (Interestingly enough, Hui-Lan had brought > > > > this up a couple of years ago.) > > > > > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > On 12/3/2012 3:58 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > > > > I suppose, yes. I was reading it like that all the time. > > > > Whether it is or not, if it is still ok, it might be better to > > clarify it. > > > > Word like "third party" tends to be a bit of problem without > > > clearlydefining. > > > > I had similar experience in other fora. > > > > > > > > Nat > > > > > > > > Sent from iPad > > > > > > > > 2012/12/03 0:52、"*[email protected]* <[email protected]>" > <*[email protected]* <[email protected]>> の > > > > メッセ�`ジ: > > > > > > > > > > > could be Resource owner? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" > > > > <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>> > > > > > 发件人: *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > > > 2012-12-03 16:49 > > > > > > > > 收件人 > > > > > > > > "ext Nat Sakimura" <*[email protected]* <[email protected]>>, > "Brian Campbell" < > > > > *[email protected]* <[email protected]>>, "oauth" > <*[email protected]* <[email protected]>> > > > > > > > > 抄送 > > > > > > > > 主题 > > > > > > > > Re: [OAUTH-WG] Assertion Framework - Why does issuer have to be > > > > either the client or a third party token service? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Nat, > > > > > > > > The current text essentially says that the assertion can either be > > > > created by the client (in which case it is self-signed) or it can be > > > > created by some other entity (which is then called the third party > > > > token service). So, this third party could be the authorization > server. > > > > > > > > Ciao > > > > Hannes > > > > > > > > > > > > From: *[email protected]* <[email protected]> [mailto:* > [email protected]* <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of > > > > ext Nat Sakimura > > > > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:35 AM > > > > To: Brian Campbell; oauth > > > > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Assertion Framework - Why does issuer have to be > > > > either the client or a third party token service? > > > > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > > > > > > > The assertion framework defines the Issuer as: > > > > > > > > Issuer The unique identifier for the entity that issued the > > > > assertion. Generally this is the entity that holds the key > > > > material used to generate the assertion. The issuer may be > either > > > > an OAuth client (when assertions are self-issued) or a third > party > > > > token service. > > > > > > > > I was wondering why it has to be either the client or a third party > > > > token service. > > > > Conceptually, it could be any token service (functionality) > > > residingin any of > > > > > > > > the stakeholders (Resource Owner, OAuth Client, Authorization > Server, or > > > > a third party). > > > > > > > > > > > > I would appreciate if you could clarify why is the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > > > > Chairman, OpenID Foundation > > > > *http://nat.sakimura.org/* <http://nat.sakimura.org/> > > > > @_nat_en > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > OAuth mailing list > > > > *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > > > *https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > OAuth mailing list > > > > *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > > > *https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > OAuth mailing list > > > > *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > > > *https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OAuth mailing list > > > *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > > *https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list* > **[email protected]* <[email protected]>* > **https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > > > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > Chairman, OpenID Foundation* > **http://nat.sakimura.org/* <http://nat.sakimura.org/> > @_nat_en > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list* > **[email protected]* <[email protected]>* > **https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth*<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
