Yes, I omitted your comments in that post because I'd previously replied to you in a separate message where I said that the "actor_token is a security token so that's not an issue that needs to be addressed." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg17247.html
The other point you've just made about having very precise semantics for a field is a fair one. However, I wanted to avoid introducing yet another field (or really two fields b/c of the associated *_type for each inbound token field), for what felt like a minor semantic variation that could be easily accommodated by the existing framework, to the draft that already has a lot of options and parameters on the request. And Token Exchange really is a framework. I think that, to some extent, the framework is a bit of a Rorschach test for deployers and implementers to utilize to solve their specific issues and needs. I expect that will be the case regardless. And I am proposing to somewhat genericize the text around one request parameter to be more reflective of that. I would like to hear from others in the WG though. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Denis <[email protected]> wrote: > Brian, > > You omitted to include my comments in this post. So here it is again: > > =========================================================== > > 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. > > =========================================================== > > I read your argumentation, but I maintain my comment. Each field should > have a precise semantics. > > If you want to have another semantics, you should propose to define > another field with its precise meaning. > > Denis > > Let me throw out a bit more context about this. The "actor_token" might, > in a delegation scenario, represent the identity of the party to whom the > access rights of the issued token are being delegated. That's the typical > delegation scenario that is discussed in the draft. However, the > "actor_token" might also be utilized/needed by the AS in an impersonation > scenario for policy or auditing reasons even when the resulting issued > token doesn't contain info about the delegation or actor. Similarly, the > actor might not be strictly doing the impersonation but rather just be a > party (again maybe needed for policy or auditing) to the token exchange > event itself. When I wrote the "actor_token" text in section 2.1 some ~18 > months ago I had the delegation scenario at the front of my mind and > (clearly) intended to accommodate it. However, I didn't intend to limit it > to only that and, looking at the text again, I think what is there now is > too prescriptive and narrow. Thus my proposing to generalize the text > somewhat. > > > > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Brian Campbell < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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-exchang >>>>>> e-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
