Thanks, William. These were added in -01 with the names “risk” and “user”. I
added references to a bunch of the definitions, including one for “wia”.
About “amr_values”, I did the investigation I’d promised about whether it was
being used, and it is in production use by Azure Active Directory at present.
Thus, I’ve left it in the spec at present.
-- Mike
From: William Denniss [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:05 AM
To: Brian Campbell
Cc: Mike Jones; <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference Values Specification
Thanks for drafting this Mike. I'm in favor of having this registry.
In addition to the specific values, I propose we add some generic ones too
(trying to follow your naming scheme):
"rba": "risk-based auth"
"upt": "user presence test"
My fear of making things too specific is that RPs may get lost in the weeds
trying to work out what things they should care about and how. As an IdP we
like to guide RPs through these kinds of decisions, and prefer to pass a more
high level indication of what happened (such as these two values). If someone
wanted to have best of both worlds, then both could be asserted, e.g. "upt fpt"
to indicate that the user presence was tested, using a fingerprint test.
Regarding the proposed "wia" value. I don't know what it is, and the spec
doesn't help me find out, can a reference be added? I also wonder if it could
be genericized to avoid being vendor specific values – but mostly I just want
to understand what it is. Almost all the other values are self-explanatory,
perhaps "pop" could use a reference as well (or maybe just a longer
explanation).
I don't see the immediate value of "amr_values", can you elaborate with some
places where this would be applied? Separately, I wonder if an extension to
OIDC should be included in this doc, which is otherwise a fairly clean registry
spec that could be used more broadly.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Brian Campbell
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
So maybe a naive question but why does this draft define "amr_values" while
also suggesting that it's fragile and that "acr" & "acr_values" is preferable?
Seems contradictory. And I doubt I'm the only one that will find it confusing.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Mike Jones
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The key part of this is establishing a registry. That can only be done in an
RFC.
John, I encourage you to submit text beefing up the arguments about why using
“acr” is preferable. The text at
http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-jones-oauth-amr-values-00.html#acrRelationship<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fself-issued.info%2fdocs%2fdraft-jones-oauth-amr-values-00.html%23acrRelationship&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cf74ac3a9b7384765ed3008d293464724%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=6dyozSx3gxBo8T5sxI%2fb8jfeN%2bfXVv5Yt2mKTvHD7Z0%3d>
is a start at that.
-- Mike
From: John Bradley [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:30 AM
To: Justin Richer
Cc: Mike Jones; <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference Values Specification
I don’t personally have a problem with people defining values for AMR and
creating a IANA registry.
That exists for ACR.
I am on record as not supporting clients requesting amr as it ai a bad idea and
the spec mentions that at the same time it defines a new request parameter for
it.
It is probably not something I will put any real effort into fighting, if
people insist on it. I will continue to recommend only using ACR in the
request.
John B.
On Jul 23, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Justin Richer
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Useful work, but shouldn’t this be defined in the OIDF, where the “amr"
parameter is defined?
— Justin
On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:48 PM, Mike Jones
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Phil Hunt and I have posted a new draft that defines some values used with the
“amr” (Authentication Methods References) claim and establishes a registry for
Authentication Method Reference values. These values include commonly used
authentication methods like “pwd” (password) and “otp” (one time password). It
also defines a parameter for requesting that specific authentication methods be
used in the authentication.
The specification is available at:
•
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-amr-values-00<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftools.ietf.org%2fhtml%2fdraft-jones-oauth-amr-values-00&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cf74ac3a9b7384765ed3008d293464724%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=gxXqEjnEXKNjkjUKBbjuYkqlm%2bAOY0BnG%2bW%2fCFu7iow%3d>
An HTML formatted version is also available at:
•
http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-jones-oauth-amr-values-00.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fself-issued.info%2fdocs%2fdraft-jones-oauth-amr-values-00.html&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cf74ac3a9b7384765ed3008d293464724%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=poM7nzAkuGDBZ3rdLm5RGnrUmmuj%2b3AY0j4K3J5l8V4%3d>
-- Mike
P.S. This note was also posted at
http://self-issued.info/?p=1429<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fself-issued.info%2f%3fp%3d1429&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cf74ac3a9b7384765ed3008d293464724%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=LwMDOuSwvq%2bjplucviMu7BV%2bWt8oTswZua9wbLtt6E0%3d>
and as
@selfissued<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2ftwitter.com%2fselfissued&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cf74ac3a9b7384765ed3008d293464724%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=U60HoWx0%2fUyyB%2f1vqy8SovvSDTNv3LceAUgo%2fo1x%2fTM%3d>.
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2foauth&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cf74ac3a9b7384765ed3008d293464724%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BsCTB4LCw7oH6JkVGyR%2bceO%2fxjmbBcT%2fYdeuDmWGtM8%3d>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2foauth&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cf74ac3a9b7384765ed3008d293464724%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BsCTB4LCw7oH6JkVGyR%2bceO%2fxjmbBcT%2fYdeuDmWGtM8%3d>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2foauth&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cf74ac3a9b7384765ed3008d293464724%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BsCTB4LCw7oH6JkVGyR%2bceO%2fxjmbBcT%2fYdeuDmWGtM8%3d>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2foauth&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7cf74ac3a9b7384765ed3008d293464724%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=BsCTB4LCw7oH6JkVGyR%2bceO%2fxjmbBcT%2fYdeuDmWGtM8%3d>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
