[Openid-specs-ab] proposed POST response type for OAuth/Connect

Nat Sakimura n-sakimura at nri.co.jp
Fri Oct 18 18:37:03 UTC 2013


+1

There may be other considerations that we may want to give to this html
encoding option.
In the old day, I remember something peculiar about IE8's behavior around
its XSS Filter.
We might want to advise the readers that they might need to
use X-XSS-Protection: 0 header.



2013/10/19 George Fletcher <gffletch at aol.com>

>  I agree with Nat. While we call the flow a POST-redirect binding (and in
> the OpenID2 case it more naturally fits this model), the response_mode
> choices of query and fragment most naturally fit with html_form. The
> mechanism used to submit the form is the POST-redirect mechanism.
>
> As for the plan to address this in the specs, I'd prefer just describing
> the response_mode parameter in it's optional state with the description
> that additional response_modes can be added at a later time. Then do the
> rest of the 'html_form' flow as an extension. This makes sure the specs are
> extensible to others like postMessage and CORS while not adding
> functionality to the current specs. This also ensures that OpenID Connect
> Providers must understand the parameter name even if for now they ignore it.
>
> It also allows current implementations to continue with their
> implementation without being out of compliance with the spec; meaning they
> have an extension point for this functionality.
>
> That said, with adding the new response_mode parameter, do we need to add
> new text around things like what happens with the client sends
> response_mode=query for an implicit request and the AS is not willing to
> return the data in the query string? Is this an 6749 'invalid_request'
> error or a 'unsupported_response_type'?
>
> Another thought, do we have to explicitly require that if the html_form
> response_mode is used, then the redirect_url MUST have a scheme of https?
> If the initial request is from a 'confidential' client then OAuth2 and
> OpenID Connect allow the redirect_url to be http.
>
> Given the above, I have some concerns that by trying to rush the additions
> into the specs we are going to miss something important.
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
>  On 10/18/13 2:00 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
>  Or possibly “form_POST”?  What do others think?****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve updated Discovery to add proposed text for the
> “response_modes_supported” parameter.  See:****
>
>
> http://self-issued.info/docs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0-18-Oct-13.html**
> **
>
>
> http://self-issued.info/docs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0-18-Oct-13-diffs.docx
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I also updated the Multiple Response Types drafts posted to specify the
> encoding for the POST response, as Breno suggested.****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ll finish the updates to Core to update the normative text that
> currently requires fragment encoding Implicit and Hybrid response
> parameters when I get back from an appointment in a few hours.****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* n-sakimura [mailto:n-sakimura at nri.co.jp <n-sakimura at nri.co.jp>]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 10:49 AM
> *To:* Mike Jones
> *Cc:* Breno de Medeiros; John Bradley; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] proposed POST response type for
> OAuth/Connect****
>
> ** **
>
> POST is a misleading name for the response mode / response encoding.
>
> Even with fragment, one could potentially use POST. In fact, that would be
> one of the easiest implementation choice for the fragment encoding case: it
> is just a few lines of Javascript code, such as:
>
>
> ****
>
>     RelayToken: function (url,callback) {****
>
>         *// calllback proto = function(data){ .... } *****
>
>         token = $.FVAR("token");****
>
>         state = $.FVAR("state")****
>
>         if (token) {****
>
>             $.post(url, { token: token, state: state }).done(callback);****
>
>         }****
>
>     }****
>
>
>
> What you are describing as POST in fact is the representation of the
> authorization grant in HTML Form. So, instead of POST, 'html_form' or
> simply 'html' is a more approriate description.
>
> (2013/10/19 1:22), Mike Jones wrote:****
>
>  These versions are updated to use Response Mode and to be more explicit
> about always using the specified response mode, including for errors:****
>
>
> http://self-issued.info/docs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0-18-Oct-13.html
> ****
>
>
> http://self-issued.info/docs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0-18-Oct-13-diffs.docx
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Breno, you’re right that you shouldn’t try to use POST or other
> non-default response modes if you haven’t first verified that the server
> supports it.****
>
>  ****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Breno de Medeiros [mailto:breno at google.com <breno at google.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 9:18 AM
> *To:* John Bradley
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS;
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] proposed POST response type for
> OAuth/Connect****
>
>  ****
>
> I meant errors for unsupported response_mode (I don't think encoding is a
> good name even for POST since encoding would be x-www-form-urlencoded, not
> POST)****
>
> On Oct 18, 2013 9:15 AM, "Breno de Medeiros" <breno at google.com> wrote:****
>
> I agree w/ Mike that the sensible way to return error responses should
> stay in default encoding for backward compatibility. I am pointing out that
> if a client asks for POST encoding and gets a fragment encoded error
> response it will likely not be able to parse it. Since the state parameter
> in particular will be missing it is difficult to see how clients would
> recover.****
>
> So if POST is not MTI the client should establish ahead of time that the
> IDP is compliant via discovery or other means. It cannot rely on
> automatically recovering by handling an error message. Which may be obvious
> but I am just pointing out.****
>
> On Oct 18, 2013 8:50 AM, "John Bradley" <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> wrote:****
>
> I am OK with response_mode or response_encoding.****
>
>  ****
>
> John B.****
>
>  ****
>
> On 2013-10-18, at 12:46 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m flexible on the parameter name.  I didn’t use “transport” or
> “response_transport” because it didn’t read as well as “response_encoding”,
> but I hear what you’re saying about postMessage and CORS not really being
> encodings.  I think I like your “response_mode” suggestion the best.  What
> do others think?****
>
>  ****
>
> If I don’t hear objections or alternative suggestions, I’ll change to
> using that.****
>
>  ****
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Breno de Medeiros [mailto:breno at google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 5:48 AM
> *To:* Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] proposed POST response type for
> OAuth/Connect****
>
>  ****
>
> I mean when server cannot support specified encoding. I am skeptical we
> can provide a backwards compatible solution though I am not sure one is
> needed if MTI is only the default.****
>
> I would prefer response_transport or response_mode instead of encoding
> since neither POST, postMessage, or CORS (to mention future candidates)
> feel like alternative encodings. They are really more than that.****
>
> On Oct 18, 2013 5:42 AM, "Breno de Medeiros" <breno at google.com> wrote:****
>
> The main issue I see here is that error messages no longer feel right
> being supplied in the default encoding for type. Case in point: if client
> requests POST because it wants ID_token but can't parse fragments,
> returning a fragment-encoded response will not help the caller.****
>
> On Oct 18, 2013 1:49 AM, "Vladimir Dzhuvinov / NimbusDS" <
> vladimir at nimbusds.com> wrote:****
>
> Hi Mike, hi guys,
>
> I read the proposed spec and it looks good to me. Making the "what" and
> the "how" orthogonal parameters is great.
>
> Vladimir
>
> --
> Vladimir Dzhuvinov : www.NimbusDS.com : vladimir at nimbusds.com
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] proposed POST response type for
> OAuth/Connect
> From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
> Date: Fri, October 18, 2013 8:02 am
> To: "<openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>"
> <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
>
>   As Breno suggested, I’ve made the proposed changes to the Multiple
> Response Types spec.  These changes do two things:
>  1.      Disentangle the specification of what parameters are to be
> returned (which is done with the response_type parameter) from the
> specification of how they are to be returned (which is done with the
> response_encoding parameter).
>  2.      Define a POST response encoding that can be used to request
> that parameters be returned via form POST.
>
>  The response_encoding parameter is only used when a non-default
> encoding is requested, so these changes will no effect on current
> implementations.
>
>  I’ve posted an updated version at
>
> http://self-issued.info/docs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0-17-Oct-13.html
> .
>  The .xml source is posted there as well.  Also, diffs from the current
> BitBucket version can be viewed as tracked changes in the Word version
> at
>
> http://self-issued.info/docs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0-17-Oct-13-diffs.docx
> .
>
>  Tomorrow I’ll review the current Connect specs and make the following
> related proposed changes:
>  ·        Add the response_encodings_supported discovery parameter.
>  ·        Review the places where fragment encoding is explicitly or
> implicitly specified, making sure the language doesn’t prohibit using
> the POST response encoding instead.  (Note that we should do this now,
> even should we don’t adopt POST as part of the core now, so we don’t
> preclude it in the future.)
>  (I’d make these changes now, but it’s probably better that I do it
> when I’m not tired.)
>
>  Anyway, this wasn’t hard and the result isn’t difficult to
> understand or implement.  (And implementation will remain optional.)
>
>  Thanks to Breno, John, and Brian for the feedback on how this should
> work.  Thanks especially to Brian for posting his draft, which I
> borrowed some text and the example from.
>
>                                                              -- Mike
>
>  From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:breno at google.com]
>  Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:02 PM
>  To: Mike Jones
>  Cc: Brian Campbell; <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
>  Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] proposed POST response type for
> OAuth/Connect
>
>
>
>   On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Mike Jones
> <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com> wrote:
>    Thanks, Brian.  This is really useful.  I suspect I’ll be using
> some of your text in my write-up. J
>
>  I just spent some time on the phone with Breno discussing this and he
> agreed that defining a POST response at this point is reasonable.  When
> talking about possible ways of specifying the POST response behavior, he
> stated the principle that when a behavioral change is being requested,
> that this should be done so dynamically, rather than via registration.
> That way, particular clients can be updated to use this behavior without
> requiring a new client registration.  (He likes using registration to
> specify behavioral restrictions, however, such as requiring particular
> signing/encryption algorithms, etc.)
>
>  He said that the way that he’d do it is to include a
> “transport=POST” parameter in the authorization request.  So
> that’s what I’ll write up.  We could later than define
> “transport=postMessage”, “transport=CORS”, etc. if we decide to
> do so.
>
>
>
>
> I think this is sufficiently small that we might be able to undertake in
> a short time-frame. I believe that POST support will prove useful. I'd
> recommend this to be added to the new response types part of the spec:
> http://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0-08.html,
> for a number of reasons: It already has the burden to deal with the
> security properties of different encoding formats for different response
> types, and would be a small change in scope to change it to talk about
> 'transport' modes instead of encoding. That spec also has been stable
> and changed little for a long time, so the chance that it can be
> re-written w/o side-effects is probably higher.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  As an aside, Breno also said that the reason that he thinks Session
> Management isn’t yet ready to be final, is that he’d like us to
> explore the option of using a CORS transport, rather than postMessage
> within Session Management.  I’ll leave it to Breno to say more about
> this.
>
>                                                                  Thanks
> all,
>                                                                  -- Mike
>
>  From: openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Brian
> Campbell
>  Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:56 AM
>  To: <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
>  Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] proposed POST response type for
> OAuth/Connect
>
>     As discussed during today's call [1], attached is the
> pseudo-standard document I wrote up earlier this year describing an HTTP
> POST response type (effectively a POST binding) for OAuth/OIDC.
>
> I know everyone has a lot of docs to read right now but this one is
> *very* short and has a good example.
>
> We've found this approach to work well in practice and be easy to
> implement.
>
> It can be done as a straight extension, as illustrated with this doc, or
> could incorporated into core connect.
>
>
>
> As John mentioned, the main drawback of this approach is proliferation
> of the Response Types registry. Which is kind of ugly but something that
> no one will care much about once it's done. It's also more of a
> consequence of the response type constructs put forth by OAuth than it
> is with this particular extension.
>
> Thanks,
>  Brian
>
>
>  [1]
>
> http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/Week-of-Mon-20131014/004062.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>  --Breno
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> 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
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> 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****
>
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab****
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Nat Sakimura (n-sakimura at nri.co.jp)****
>
> Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. ****
>
> Tel:+81-3-6274-1412 Fax:+81-3-6274-1547****
>
> ** **
>
> 本メールに含まれる情報は機密情報であり、宛先に記載されている方のみに送信することを意図しております。意図された受取人以外の方によるこれらの情報の開示、複製、再配布や転送など一切の利用が禁止されています。誤って本メールを受信された場合は、申し訳ござӓ****
>
>  6;|****
>
> 14;せんが、送信者までお知らせいただき、受信されたメールを削除していただきますようお願い致します。****
>
> PLEASE READ:****
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only.****
>
> If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system.****
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing listOpenid-specs-ab at lists.openid.nethttp://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
> --
> [image: George Fletcher] <http://connect.me/gffletch>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20131019/ce8765df/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: XeC
Type: image/png
Size: 80878 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20131019/ce8765df/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list