[Openid-specs-risc] issuer conflict

Phil Hunt (IDM) phil.hunt at oracle.com
Thu Aug 3 16:19:27 UTC 2017


Lets not forget that we also have cases where subject is identified by email or telephone or other identifier (implicit fed cases). 

Risc needs to have a subject type attribute to inform parsers how to identify the subject. The next question whether sub gets re-used as a general purpose attribute or whether specific attributes are used for each type (email, telephone). 

In solving this broader requirement the sub/iss problem may also be resolved. 

Phil

> On Aug 3, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My preference: If all SET only supports a single iss/sub pair, then 1. If a SET can have events for multiple iss/sub pair, then 2.
> 
> 
> 2017年8月3日(木) 7:49 Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu at google.com>:
>> Each SET profile must define or clarify several aspects of the specs. For RISC most of these must only be only specified (like key resolution), but there is at least one issue for which we don't have an agreed on solution.
>> 
>> In some use cases the issuer of the SET is different from the issuer of the subject identifier, and at least in those cases there cannot be only one top level "iss" claim.
>> 
>> Here are the proposals I am aware of to solve this issue:
>> 
>> 1. Move iss+sub to the event level. The drawback of this approach is redundancy when multiple events are present in the SET.
>> 
>> {
>>   "jti": "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30",
>>   "iat": 1458496025,
>>   "iss": "https://tr.example.com",
>>   "aud": "https://rv.example.com/",
>>   "events": {
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:sessions-revoked":
>>     {
>>       "iss": "https://example.com",
>>       "sub": "47635747",
>>     },
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:tokens-revoked":
>>     {
>>       "iss": "https://example.com",
>>       "sub": "47635747",
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> 1.1 Move only the subject "iss" to the event level and leave "sub" at the top level (next to the SET "iss"). I find this solution very confusing.
>> 
>> {
>>   "jti": "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30",
>>   "iat": 1458496025,
>>   "iss": "https://tr.example.com",
>>   "sub": "47635747",
>>   "aud": "https://rv.example.com/",
>>   "events": {
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:sessions-revoked":
>>     {
>>       "iss": "https://example.com",
>>     },
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:tokens-revoked":
>>     {
>>       "iss": "https://example.com",
>>     }
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> 2. Move iss+sub immediately under the "events" claim. No redundancy in this case.
>> 
>> {
>>   "jti": "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30",
>>   "iat": 1458496025,
>>   "iss": "https://tr.example.com",
>>   "aud": "https://rv.example.com/",
>>   "events": {
>>     "iss": "https://example.com",
>>     "sub": "47635747",
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:sessions-revoked": {},
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:tokens-revoked": {}
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> 3. Move iss+sub to a new nested claim.
>> 
>> {
>>   "jti": "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30",
>>   "iat": 1458496025,
>>   "iss": "https://tr.example.com",
>>   "aud": "https://rv.example.com/",
>>   "target": {
>>     "iss": "https://example.com",
>>     "sub": "47635747",
>>   },
>>   "events": {
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:sessions-revoked": {},
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:tokens-revoked": {}
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> 4. Define a new top level issuer claim either for the SET or for the subject.
>> 
>> {
>>   "jti": "3d0c3cf797584bd193bd0fb1bd4e7d30",
>>   "iat": 1458496025,
>>   "iss": "https://tr.example.com",
>>   "iss-sub": "https://example.com",
>>   "sub": "47635747",
>>   "aud": "https://rv.example.com/",
>>   "events": {
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:sessions-revoked": {},
>>     "urn:ietf:params:risc:event:tokens-revoked": {}
>>   }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> An open question is if this new iss+sub solution should be always required or if a top level iss+sub should also be allowed (when there is no conflict). I vote for having only one way for simplicity.
>> 
>> Once we decide on a solution we can start working on the RISC profile draft.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Marius
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openid-specs-risc mailing list
>> Openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-risc
> 
> -- 
> Nat Sakimura
> 
> Chairman of the Board, OpenID Foundation
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-risc mailing list
> Openid-specs-risc at lists.openid.net
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.openid.net_mailman_listinfo_openid-2Dspecs-2Drisc&d=DwICAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=JBm5biRrKugCH0FkITSeGJxPEivzjWwlNKe4C_lLIGk&m=oELWrk4I8hITS0xtNBEzkxMNmGjdHfFGkwNTJluxMQM&s=WH0oHORcbz6GzolvV9301ap4nCL-qYRmD7wWIWPJnL8&e= 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-risc/attachments/20170803/c6ae2ef8/attachment.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-risc mailing list