Hi all,

I created a PR for this change. 

https://github.com/oauthstuff/draft-oauth-rar/pull/76 
<https://github.com/oauthstuff/draft-oauth-rar/pull/76>

Please review and comment/approve. 

best regards,
Torsten. 

> Am 19.06.2021 um 17:01 schrieb Filip Skokan <[email protected]>:
> 
> I support such change.
> 
> Odesláno z iPhonu
> 
>> 19. 6. 2021 v 15:36, Torsten Lodderstedt 
>> <[email protected]>:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Brian,
>> 
>> the idea was to use resource indicators as convenient short cut to support 
>> audience restricted access tokens. However, I agree this can be achieved by 
>> specifying authorization details in the token request as well.
>> 
>> So I‘m fine with dropping resource indicators for RAR at all. This means RAR 
>> on one hand and scopes + resource indicators on the other hand are clearly 
>> decoupled and independent.
>> 
>> best regards,
>> Torsten.
>> 
>>> Am 18.06.2021 um 20:13 schrieb Brian Campbell 
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In my reading and understanding of the text and intent, the content and 
>>> meaning of a particular authorization details object are fully governed by 
>>> its "type". And while the draft provides a set of common data elements 
>>> intended to be usable across different types (locations, actions, 
>>> datatypes, identifier, privileges) a specific type is free to define 
>>> whatever suits its needs. A type definition may or may not involve those 
>>> common elements and could even use the same name(s) with different meaning 
>>> or structure. 
>>> 
>>> So, while I understand the motivation behind the RFC8707 resource parameter 
>>> being usable in a token request to make the AS filter, the included 
>>> authorization details of the resultant token based on the "locations" 
>>> element[1], I'm a bit concerned about a layering problem here. The 
>>> authorization details objects of the grant might not contain a "locations" 
>>> element or might have one with a different meaning or structure.  
>>> 
>>> The draft also describes using the authorization_details token request 
>>> parameter to specify the authorization details a client wants the AS to 
>>> assign to a particular access token[2]. So the problematic resource 
>>> parameter behaviour is also kind of redundant. I think maybe it should be 
>>> removed.
>>> 
>>> [*] described in 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html#section-6.2 
>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html%2523section-6.2%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1624644831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw2Neq-jZjDLFKLvk4ORFZgL&source=gmail-imap&ust=1624719721000000&usg=AOvVaw3VREfBmTcEdimVCRXcGUpu>
>>>  and mentioned at 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html#section-1-8 
>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html%2523section-1-8%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1624644831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw1RV1Hi3T3GesR4hdU-tNIj&source=gmail-imap&ust=1624719721000000&usg=AOvVaw3Ccx5Oj2Y6lY4zx0PxUwGH>
>>>  and in 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html#section-7-1 
>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html%2523section-7-1%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1624644831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw0ALWuf7bYYCKFQZUkl4NFz&source=gmail-imap&ust=1624719721000000&usg=AOvVaw0B5JKz5Tm3oF4SQv0Olywy>
>>> 
>>> [2] 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html#name-token-request
>>>  
>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rar-05.html%2523name-token-request%26source%3Dgmail-imap%26ust%3D1624644831000000%26usg%3DAOvVaw1rkJogfzl-0dbnMhVtiOwW&source=gmail-imap&ust=1624719721000000&usg=AOvVaw3BVO3rOm3nxewYzy1aOVqt>
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged 
>>> material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, 
>>> distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
>>> received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately 
>>> by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your 
>>> computer. Thank you._______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth&source=gmail-imap&ust=1624644831000000&usg=AOvVaw1Ol8hiDotFufYe9jQCTi1m
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to