The actor_token is a security token so that's not an issue that needs to be addressed.
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Denis <[email protected]> wrote: > Brian, > > The current text is: > > actor_token OPTIONAL. A security token that represents the identity of the > party that is authorized to use the requested security token and act on > behalf of the subject. > > This sentence is indeed wrong since an actor-token is not a security token. > > So your proposed change does not solve this issue: actor_token > OPTIONAL. A security token that represents the identity of the acting > party. > > The current text states: > > Typically, in the request, the subject_token represents the identity of > the party on behalf of whom > the token is being requested while the actor_token represents the identity > of the party to whom the access > rights of the issued token are being delegated. > > Logically, the definition should be along the following lines: > > actor_token OPTIONAL. Indicates the identity of the party to whom the > access rights of the issued token are being delegated. > > If there is no delegation, then this field (which is optional) will not be > used. > > Anyway, thank you for requesting the change, otherwise this would have > been a left error. > > Denis > > I do have one minor issue I'd like to raise that relates to some > conversations I've been a party to recently about implementations and > applications of token exchange. > > I think that the current text in §2.1 for the "actor_token" is overly > specific towards the delegation scenario. I'd propose the language be > generalized somewhat to allow more versatility in applications/deployments > of the token exchange framework. Here's that text: > > actor_token > OPTIONAL. A security token that represents the identity of the > acting party. > > > > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> The last email from Brian addresses the multiple audiences/resources >> issue with an error code, and we did not see any objection to this approach >> so far. >> >> >> *Authors,* >> >> Are there any other open issues with this draft? >> Do you believe it is ready for WGLC? >> >> Thanks, >> Rifaat & Hannes >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Brian Campbell < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> As mentioned during the Chicago meeting the "invalid_target" error code >>> that was added in -07 was intended to give the AS a standard way to reject >>> request with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is >>> unwilling or unable to process based on policy or whatever criteria . It >>> was intended as a compromise, of sorts, to allow for the multiple >>> resources/audiences in the request but provide an easy out for the AS of >>> saying it can't be supported based on whatever implementation or security >>> or policy it has. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There are cases where tokens are supposed to be consumed at multiple >>>> places and the `aud` needed to capture them. That's why `aud` is a >>>> multi-valued field. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:35 AM Torsten Lodderstedt < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> May I ask you to explain this reason? >>>>> >>>>> Am 27.03.2017 um 08:48 schrieb Mike Jones <[email protected] >>>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> For the same reason that the “aud” claim is multi-valued in JWTs, the >>>>> audience needs to stay multi-valued in Token Exchange. Ditto for >>>>> resources. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -- Mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* OAuth [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] >>>>> *On Behalf Of *Brian Campbell >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 8:45 AM >>>>> *To:* Torsten Lodderstedt <[email protected]> >>>>> *Cc:* oauth <[email protected]> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchang >>>>> e-07.txt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the review and question, Torsten. >>>>> >>>>> The desire to support multiple audience/resource values in the request >>>>> came up during a review and discussion among the authors of the document >>>>> when preparing the -03 draft. As I recall, it was said that both >>>>> Salesforce >>>>> and Microsoft had use-cases for it. I incorporated support for it into the >>>>> draft acting in the role of editor. >>>>> >>>>> From an individual perspective, I tend to agree with you that allowing >>>>> for multiple audiences/resources adds a lot of complexity that's like not >>>>> needed in many (or most) cases. And I would personally be open to making >>>>> audience and resource mutual exclusive and single valued. A question for >>>>> the WG I suppose. >>>>> >>>>> The "invalid_target" error code that was added in -07 was intended to >>>>> give the AS a standard way to deal with the complexity and reject request >>>>> with multiple audiences/resources that it doesn't understand or is >>>>> unwilling or unable to process. It was intended as a compromise, of sorts, >>>>> to allow for the multiples but provide an easy out of saying it can't be >>>>> supported based on whatever implementation or policy of the AS. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Brian, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> thanks for the clarification around resource, audience and scope. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Here are my comments on the draft: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In section 2.1 it states: „Multiple "resource" parameters may be used >>>>> to indicate >>>>> >>>>> that the issued token is intended to be used at the multiple >>>>> >>>>> resources listed.“ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can you please explain the rational in more detail? I don’t understand >>>>> why there is a need to ask for access tokens, which are good for multiple >>>>> resources at once. This is a request type more or less exclusively used in >>>>> server to server scenarios, right? So the only reason I can think of is >>>>> call reduction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On the other side, this feature increases the AS's complexity, e.g. >>>>> its policy may prohibit to issue tokens for multiple resources in general >>>>> or the particular set the client is asking for. How shall the AS handles >>>>> such cases? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And it is getting even more complicated given there could also be >>>>> multiple audience values and the client could mix them: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Multiple "audience" parameters >>>>> >>>>> may be used to indicate that the issued token is intended to be >>>>> >>>>> used at the multiple audiences listed. The "audience" and >>>>> >>>>> "resource" parameters may be used together to indicate multiple >>>>> >>>>> target services with a mix of logical names and physical >>>>> >>>>> locations.“ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And in the end the client may add some scope values to the „meal“, >>>>> which brings us to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> „Effectively, the requested access rights of the >>>>> >>>>> token are the cartesian product of all the scopes at all the target >>>>> >>>>> services." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I personally would suggest to drop support for multiple audience and >>>>> resource parameters and make audience and resource mutual exclusive. I >>>>> think this is sufficient and much easier to implement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Torsten. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 11.01.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Brian Campbell < >>>>> [email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Draft -07 of "OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange" has been published. The >>>>> primary change in -07 is the addition of a description of the relationship >>>>> between audience/resource/scope, which was a request or comment that came >>>>> up during the f2f meeting in Seoul. >>>>> >>>>> Excerpted from the Document History: >>>>> >>>>> -07 >>>>> >>>>> o Fixed typo (desecration -> discretion). >>>>> o Added an explanation of the relationship between scope, audience >>>>> and resource in the request and added an "invalid_target" error >>>>> code enabling the AS to tell the client that the requested >>>>> audiences/resources were too broad. >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:00 PM >>>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>>> directories. >>>>> This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol of the >>>>> IETF. >>>>> >>>>> Title : OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange >>>>> Authors : Michael B. Jones >>>>> Anthony Nadalin >>>>> Brian Campbell >>>>> John Bradley >>>>> Chuck Mortimore >>>>> Filename : draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07.txt >>>>> Pages : 31 >>>>> Date : 2017-01-11 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> This specification defines a protocol for an HTTP- and JSON- based >>>>> Security Token Service (STS) by defining how to request and obtain >>>>> security tokens from OAuth 2.0 authorization servers, including >>>>> security tokens employing impersonation and delegation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange/ >>>>> >>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07 >>>>> >>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-07 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>>> submission >>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>>> >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Nat Sakimura >>>> >>>> Chairman of the Board, OpenID Foundation >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
