1. We have WebFinger lets use that as we have already been through the discovery issues, point being there are security issues at stake here w/o proper knowledge, next thing we know some rouge sever has signed up as a revocation sever. 3. you can still have one if you have not used it and want to revoke it, I may not want to redeem the auth_code to get a token to revoke it, I may just not want to send the token 5. That is just the point, how does one know that the token id revoked 6. very poor choice, as no one know what is going on 7. No I'm not conflating things here at all, please read the text. If I send a access_token and the server's policy says that the refresh_token associated with the access_token is also to be revoked then I have no way to know that "The client MUST NOT use this token again after revocation". What is "this" mean in the sentence, only the token I sent or any revoked token. Also how do I know when the token is actually revoked, could take a week or more given policy?
-----Original Message----- From: Justin Richer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:13 AM To: Anthony Nadalin Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-04 Review On 01/24/2013 10:58 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote: > 1. we keep punting on discovery, this has an impact on security of > where I send my credentials and token, can't see punting yet again > here It doesn't make any sense to solve discovery *just* for revocation, which you seem to be advocating. Of course it has an impact on security -- this is a security protocol we're talking about, that goes without saying. It also impacts security where I send the user for authorization, and everything else that you do. I would rather see discovery solved properly for all of OAuth including all of its endpoints. UMA has taken a crack at this, there's a draft defining XRD link types, OIDC has a solution for this as well (in the provider configuration .well-known doc). > 2. OK, make this explicit in specification Fair enough. Got specific language to suggest? > 3. if you have an auth_code you should be able to use it, agree not > all will have it but some will You shouldn't have an auth code anymore -- you're supposed to throw it away since it's single use (per 10.5 of RFC6749). Why wouldn't you just use the token? You're guaranteed to have the token in all cases. I see no value in sometimes sending an auth code and sometimes sending a token when I am guaranteed to always have the token. > 4. MAY seems a better choice Possibly -- I think SHOULD is fine here but I'm curious what others say. > 5. Make it explicit in the spec one way or the other, too vague now Explicit how? It can explicitly go either way. From the client's perspective, it's supposed to be immediate. From the server's perspective, it could take a while to actually enforce that. > 6. How does one find the policy, as this has an impact on #7 How does one find any other implementation specific policy? There was already a big discussion about this a while ago. It used to be a MUST to cascade, then as I recall, Google objected to it because their access tokens in the wild can't be revoked at all, so revoking a refresh token revokes only that token. The current language allows the server to decide what it has to do. > 7. There is a big difference here in enforcement, the client should > not have to enforce this rule, the client may not know due to policy > that revoking 1 token revokes other tokens thus the client would have > to know the servers policy. This should be a SHOULD not MUST You're conflating things here. If the client revokes the refresh token, they must not use that refresh token again. They can try to use any access or other tokens if they want to, but that refresh token is off the table. The server is allowed to also nuke any access tokens that it wants to, but if the client wants to be really, really sure, it can revoke all of its access tokens separately. -- Justin > -----Original Message----- > From: Justin Richer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:17 AM > To: Anthony Nadalin > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-04 Review > > Not to jump in and answer for Torsten, but I thought I'd offer at least my > understanding of the document: > > On 01/23/2013 06:54 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote: >> 1. Since not stated I assume that the Revocation Endpoint can exist on >> a different server from the Authorization server (or is it assumed that they >> are 1), if so how is the Revocation Endpoint found? > It could be separate if your architecture can support that. It gets found the > same way other OAuth endpoints get found -- configuration documents, some > kind of discovery mechanism, or magic. Which is to say, that's not currently > OAuth's problem. > >> 2. Any token type that is supported can be revoked, including refresh >> token ? > That's the idea. We've implemented this on our OIDC server so that you can > also revoke ID Tokens for session management purposes. > >> 3. Why does one have to send the token, can't this just be an >> auth_code ? > You don't always use an auth code to get a token (think implicit, client > credentials, assertion, or resource owner credentials flows), and auth codes > are supposed to be thrown away after use anyway. > >> 4. Says CORS SHOULD be supported, I think a MAY be better here since a >> site may have issues supporting CORS > If they have issues, which is to say "A good reason not to", then they don't > have to support it. That's the semantics behind "SHOULD", and so it is fine > here. > >> 5. Does not say but is the revocation to be immediate upon the return >> of the request ? > This is implementation dependent. Large scale distributed implementations > could have trouble making this "immediate", but small systems are more likely > to be quick. From the client's perspective, if they get back a success > response, they shouldn't count on that token being good anymore (see section > 2 note about client behavior). > >> 6. Does the revocation of the access token also revoke the refresh >> token (if it was provided) ? Or is this a revocation policy decision ? > That's a policy decision. > >> 7. Section 2 says "the client MUST NOT use this token again", well >> that seems odd, not sure this should be here as the client could try to use >> it gain, there is no need to put support in client to prevent this. > Why would a client want to use a token that they just revoked? This is > prescribing the desired correct behavior to a client so that client > developers will do the right thing when they implement it. Isn't that the > point of the spec? > > -- Justin > > > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
