Because many implementations (including mine which does support my old token
chaining draft) treat access tokens and refresh tokens separately in terms of
data store and structure. Additionally, the refresh token is tied to the client
and presented by the client. But in this case it's someone downstream, an RS,
presenting the token. So unlike a refresh token being presented by the one it
was issued to, this token is being presented by someone it was presented to.
The feeling is close, but not quite the same in either development or
assumptions.
-- Justin
/ Sent from my phone /
-------- Original message --------
From: Bill Mills <[email protected]>
Date: 03/26/2015 2:24 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Justin Richer <[email protected]>, "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Token Chaining Use Case
So why can't the access tokne simply be re-used as a refresh token? Why would
it need a new grant type at all?
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:31 AM, Justin Richer <[email protected]>
wrote:
As requested after last night’s informal meeting, here is the token chaining
use case that I want to see represented in the token swap draft.
[ Client ] -> [ A ] -> [ B ] -> [ C ]
An OAuth client gets an access token AT1, just like it always would, with
scopes [A, B, C] in order to call service A, which requires all three scopes.
Service A (an RS) accepts this token since it has its scope, and then needs to
call service B in turn, which requires scopes [B, C]. It could just re-send the
token it got in, AT1, but that would give the downstream RS the ability to call
services with scope [ A ] and it should not be allowed to do that. To limit
exposure, service A calls a token swap at the AS to create AT2 with scopes [ B,
C ], effectively acting as an OAuth client requesting a downscoped token based
on AT1. Service A then acts as an OAuth client to call service B, now acting as
an RS to service A’s client, and can fulfill the request. And it’s turtles all
the way down: Service B can also call service C, and now B acts as a client,
requesting AT3 with scope [ C ] based on AT2, and sending AT3 to service C.
This prevents C from being able to call B or A, both of which would have been
available if AT1 had been passed around. Note that service A or the Client can
also request a downscoped token with [ C ] to call service C directly as well,
and C doesn’t have to care how it got there.
In other words, it lets the client software be very, very dumb. It doesn’t have
to do any special processing, doesn’t have to know what’s in the token, it just
follows the recipe of “I got a token, I get another token based on this to call
someone else”. It’s also analogous to the refresh token flow, but with access
tokens going in and out. I’ve deployed this setup several times in different
service deployments. Even though there is a performance hit in the additional
round trips (as Phil brought up in another thread), in these cases the desire
to have the tokens hold least privilege access rights (smallest set of scopes
per service) outweighed any performance hit (which was shown to be rather small
in practice).
What I want is for the token swap draft to define or use a mechanism that
allows us to do this. I think we can do that pretty easily by adjusting the
token swap syntax and language, and explicitly calling out the semantic
processing portion (the current core of the document) for what it is: a way for
a token issuer to communicate to a token service specific actions. At a high
level, the spec would be something like:
1. How to swap a token at an AS
1. Send a request to the token endpoint with a new grant type, and a token
(of any type/format/flavor) on the way in
2. Get back a new token in a token response
2. Communicating act as / on behalf of semantics via a JWT assertion
1. How to create (as an AS/RS/client/other issuer) a JWT with act-as semantics
2. What to do (as an AS/RS) with a JWT with act-as semantics
3. How to create a JWT with on-behalf-of semeantics
4. What to do with a JWT with on-behalf-of-semantics
5. How to possibly represent these semantics with something other than a JWT
Section 2 uses the syntax from section 1. Other applications, like the one I
laid out above, can use the syntax from section 1 as well. This works for
structured, unstructured, self-generated, cross-domain, within-domain, and
other tokens.
— Justin
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
