[Openid-specs-ab] Session cleanup via back-channel
George Fletcher
gffletch at aol.com
Thu Mar 13 20:11:14 UTC 2014
So I'm to blame for the confusion... see the other email I just sent:)
As for browsers and JS. Basically, yes, the browser does not run JS from
historical pages so the problem comes when the user navigates the same
browser window from RP "A" to RP "B" and then logs out. If the user had
two tabs open, one for RP "A" and one for RP "B", then the JS solution
will work just fine.
Thanks,
George
On 3/13/14 3:53 PM, Todd W Lainhart wrote:
> > Your example seems to indicate that JavaScript code in pages present
> in the browser history doesn’t get to run unless the page is the
> displayed page. Is that correct?
>
> I'm also not an expert, but that's my understanding.
>
> > Do you have any sense why this issue also prompted discussions on
> non-opaque access tokens and introspection?
>
> I don't. That's something that George/Justin brought up. Went over
> my head.
> *
>
>
> Todd Lainhart
> Rational software
> IBM Corporation
> 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-1250**
> 1-978-899-4705
> 2-276-4705 (T/L)
> lainhart at us.ibm.com*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
> To: Todd W Lainhart/Lexington/IBM at IBMUS,
> Cc: George Fletcher <gffletch at aol.com>, Justin Richer
> <jricher at mitre.org>, "openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net"
> <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>,
> "openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net"
> <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>, Pedro Felix
> <pmhsfelix at gmail.com>
> Date: 03/13/2014 03:26 PM
> Subject: RE: [Openid-specs-ab] Session cleanup via back-channel
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thanks for the concrete example, Todd. That’s useful. Your example
> seems to indicate that JavaScript code in pages present in the browser
> history doesn’t get to run unless the page is the displayed page. Is
> that correct? And is the answer the same for all browsers or is it
> different for different browsers? (I’m not an expert in browser
> implementation details, so I’m openly asking this, hoping that someone
> on the thread does have this expertise.)
>
> Do you have any sense why this issue also prompted discussions on
> non-opaque access tokens and introspection?
>
> -- Mike
>
> *From:* Todd W Lainhart [mailto:lainhart at us.ibm.com] *
> Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:12 PM*
> To:* Mike Jones*
> Cc:* George Fletcher; Justin Richer; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net;
> openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net; Pedro Felix*
> Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Session cleanup via back-channel
>
> > Am I correct or wrong that this is the same issue?
>
> It is the same issue. My sense at the time it was closed was that
> folks on the call didn't want to hold up the specs for this, and so
> Nat proposed the extension route, with the observation that the topic
> had been raised before. I'm also recalling that maybe the Googlers
> had something to say about this.
>
> > is there a reason that RPs can’t learn of the OP-initiated logout
> via the JavaScript session state changed notification already in the spec?
>
> I'm not speaking for Pedro, but I'll give you an example (but real)
> scenario that prompted #916. Browser is viewing the protected
> resources of RP "A" (a session has already been started). Bob clicks
> a link on the page which now shows the representation of a protected
> resource from RP "B". Bob selects "logout", which directs "B" to the
> end_session endpoint. Ideally, "A" would get notified of the session
> end so that it can drop resources that it was associating to Bob.
>
> *
>
>
> Todd Lainhart
> Rational software
> IBM Corporation
> 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460-1250**
> 1-978-899-4705
> 2-276-4705 (T/L)**_
> _**_lainhart at us.ibm.com_* <mailto:lainhart at us.ibm.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Mike Jones <_Michael.Jones at microsoft.com_
> <mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>>
> To: George Fletcher <_gffletch at aol.com_ <mailto:gffletch at aol.com>>,
> Pedro Felix <_pmhsfelix at gmail.com_ <mailto:pmhsfelix at gmail.com>>,
> Justin Richer <_jricher at mitre.org_ <mailto:jricher at mitre.org>>,
> Cc: "_openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>"
> <_openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>
> Date: 03/13/2014 02:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Session cleanup via back-channel
> Sent by: _openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Maybe I’m confused, but this issue seems like a duplicate of
> _https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/916_, which we’d
> previously discussed and decided not to fix. Am I correct or wrong
> that this is the same issue?
>
> Responding to Pedro’s point “2) The OP propagate this cleanup
> notification to the downstream RPs, also via back-channel (a
> back-channel to front-channel is not possible)” – is there a reason
> that RPs can’t learn of the OP-initiated logout via the JavaScript
> session state changed notification already in the spec? I realize
> that requiring JavaScript might not be your preferred mechanism, but
> we’ve also tried not to have multiple ways to do the same thing,
> unless there’s a good reason to do so. I’m open-minded about this,
> but would like to hear what the arguments for the additional mechanism
> are, and if they’re different than those discussed with issue #916.
>
> I’m also confused about the talk of structured access tokens. How do
> structured access tokens relate to logout? And why would we consider
> changing access tokens from being opaque to structured? Requiring
> specific structure would break many OAuth and OpenID Connect
> implementations.
>
> I’m also confused why introspection is being discussed again. We
> deleted the Check ID Endpoint, which did introspection on ID Tokens in
> May 2012 in response to developer feedback about not wanting to have
> to support two ways of doing the same thing. See
> _https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/issue/570_. Why is this being
> discussed again, now that the specs are final?
>
> I guess call me confused today…
>
> -- Mike
> *
> From:* _openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>[_mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net_]
> *On Behalf Of *George Fletcher*
> Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:19 AM*
> To:* Pedro Felix; Justin Richer*
> Cc:* _openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>*
> Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Session cleanup via back-channel
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> Sorry for confusing the thread. I was responding to Nat's point about
> structured headers. It's not really relevant to the issue you are
> addressing. As for requirements for the back-channel call, you can add
> a document on the wiki, or file a new issue on the site as an
> enhancement for the working group to address and then put in the
> ticket all the current requirements. Others can then comment on the
> ticket and the working group can track it.
>
> Note, that for this back-channel capability to be relevant to an RP,
> the RP must support the concept of "server side" sessions (or maintain
> a "black list" of revoked sessions). This doesn't tend to be
> capabilities that most RPs support.
>
> Thanks,
> George
> On 3/13/14 11:12 AM, Pedro Felix wrote:
> 1) Since I'm rather new in this group, what would be the best way to
> continue this discussion? In this email thread? By trying to produce a
> requirements doc on the wiki?
> Most probably, I will be working on an implementation of this feature
> in the near future.
>
> 2) Picking up on Justin's reply: an approach would be to also use the
> "aud" and the "sub" to identify the session to cleanup. I don't like
> the idea of requiring a round-trip to the introspection endpoint in
> order to check the token purpose. Makes sense?
>
> Thanks
> Pedro
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Justin Richer <_jricher at mitre.org_
> <mailto:jricher at mitre.org>> wrote:
> A number of our apps use this combined approach -- the server sends
> out a signed JWT that the client can check the "iss" field and
> signature, then (if it cares to do so) the client does introspection
> with the server at "iss" to see if the token's still valid and what
> it's good for.
>
> -- Justin
>
> On 03/13/2014 09:48 AM, George Fletcher wrote:
> On the "structured token" side of things I remember having a
> discussion about this at IIW (a few back) and I thought someone and
> written something up. It was needed in a number of cases that were
> using the token introspection endpoint as a way to identifier the
> authorization server to send the token to for introspection. I can't
> find my notes on the conversation but maybe someone else remembers?
>
> I think conceptually it was as simple as a non-signed JWT containing
> iss and token fields. Obviously, the rest of JOSE could be applied for
> signed or encrypted tokens.
>
> Thanks,
> George
> On 3/12/14 9:02 PM, n-sakimura wrote:
> Let's just write up requirements on the WG wiki (@bitbucket).
> Once we agree on the requirements, it should be straight forward to
> turn it into a spec.
>
> On the side note, perhaps it is actually for OAuth WG, but it would be
> nice to spec out the structured (access) token. it could be pseudo
> opaque as well as long as you can find the authorization server from
> the token but we at least need to be able to find out the iss.
>
> Nat
>
> (2014/03/13 3:58), John Bradley wrote:
>
> We have discussed creating a backchannel push method for the IdP to
> notify the RP.
>
> So far noting is written up. I have a bad feeling that it might be me
> that needs to create the first draft.
>
> John B.
>
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Pedro Felix _<pmhsfelix at gmail.com>_
> <mailto:pmhsfelix at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've a scenario where a OIDC OP is acting as a bridge between upstream
> IdPs using non-OIDC protocols (e.g Shibboleth) and downstream RPs
> using OIDC.
> In this scenario I have the following requirements
> 1) The upstream IdP notifies the OP of a session termination via
> back-channel
> 2) The OP propagate this cleanup notification to the downstream RPs,
> also via back-channel (a back-channel to front-channel is not possible)
>
> Unfortunately, the OIDC session management spec does not provide any
> way to perform this back-channel cleanup, however I remember reading
> some meeting notes about this possibility.
>
> Is there anything that can be shared? I would like to align our
> solution with what is being developed by this working group.
>
> Thanks
> Pedro
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list _
> __Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>_
> __http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab_
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list _
> __Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>_
> __http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab_
>
>
> -- _
> _George Fletcher <http://connect.me/gffletch>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list_
> __Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>_
> __http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab_
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list_
> __Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>_
> __http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab_
>
>
> -- _
> _George Fletcher
> <http://connect.me/gffletch>_______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list_
> __Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net_
> <mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>_
> __http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab_
--
George Fletcher <http://connect.me/gffletch>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20140313/916c1b66/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 80944 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20140313/916c1b66/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 79004 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20140313/916c1b66/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: XeC
Type: image/png
Size: 80944 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20140313/916c1b66/attachment-0002.png>
More information about the Openid-specs-ab
mailing list