Hi all, I have a couple of questions about the OPRM draft.
1. If I have a resource server that has multiple endpoints, each of which require different scopes, how should those be handled? For example, in the SSF spec, the SSF Transmitter has a Create Stream endpoint and a Polling endpoint. The scopes required for these are different. How would the client know which scope is to be used with which endpoint? 2. Does the spec encourage insecure behavior in the caller by requesting tokens with scopes that they do not understand? I.e. If an authorization server is known to provide valuable tokens with certain scopes, can a malicious resource server trick the client into requesting a more powerful token, which it then uses to access some other service? Since the consent dialog is likely to show two trusted names (i.e. the requesting client and the authorization server), the user would be prone to providing consent, even if the scope looks unnecessarily permissive. Thanks, Atul On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 2:28 AM Takahiko Kawasaki <t...@authlete.com> wrote: > I support adoption. > > In the past, when considering the encryption of JWT access tokens, I > learned that the draft regarding the metadata of the resource server had > expired, which was disappointing. For an authorization server to encrypt an > access token with an asymmetric algorithm, it must obtain a public key of > the target resource server, but there was no standardized way. I'm glad to > see the specification has been revived. If it had been revived a bit > earlier, the addition that was made as "client" metadata in the "JWT > Response for OAuth Token Introspection" specification would likely have > been treated as metadata for the "resource server." > > Best Regards, > Takahiko Kawasaki > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 4:02 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef < > rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> This is an official call for adoption for the *Protected Resource >> Metadata* draft: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-oauth-resource-metadata/ >> >> Please, reply on the mailing list and let us know if you are in favor of >> adopting this draft as WG document, by *Sep 6th.* >> >> Regards, >> Rifaat & Hannes >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
