[Openid-specs-ab] Interaction between OIDC Registration and RFC7591

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Wed Oct 19 07:57:49 UTC 2016


Yup.

History is that we have been cutting pieces that warrant wider use cases
out of OIDC into IETF. OAuth JAR is another such thing. At sometime in the
future, we should rev. OIDC to make ver. 1.1 so that it can refer the RFCs.
That would simplify the spec and also give more functionalities that did
not exist at the time of OIDC 1.0 standardization.

Nat

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:34 PM Roland Hedberg via Openid-specs-ab <
openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:

> Making OIDC Client Registration be an extension of RFC 7591 would make
> lots of peoples life easier.
> So I’m in support of that effort.
>
> > 19 okt. 2016 kl. 07:49 skrev Torsten Lodderstedt <
> torsten at lodderstedt.net>:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > beside the specific problems regarding "scope", I think the general
> issue is the OIDC registration spec is NOT an extension of RFC 7591. This
> means, as already pointed out by Justin, software statements (specwise)
> simply do not exist in the OpenID Connect universe.
> >
> > In order to leverage software statements in MODRNA, we therefore needed
> to write another registration spec, which combines elements of RFC 7591 and
> OIDC client registration (
> http://openid.net/wordpress-content/uploads/2014/04/draft-mobile-registration-01.html).
> I consider this an interims solution (at best) and I hope we will find a
> solution, which works for OIDC in general.
> >
> > To me the obvious solution is to update the OIDC Client Registration
> spec to become an extension of RFC 7591.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > best regards,
> > Torsten.
> >
> > Am 15.10.2016 um 11:11 schrieb Roland Hedberg via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>:
> >
> >> Since the spec says:
> >> ’An Authorization Server MAY ignore values provided by the client, and
> MUST ignore any fields sent by the Client that it does not understand.’
> >>
> >> I am with George in that the client should assume that the AS ignored
> the scope request since scope is
> >> not in the listed set of parameters for dynamic client registration.
> >>
> >>> 15 okt. 2016 kl. 04:31 skrev George Fletcher via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>:
> >>>
> >>> Given the current situation, I think the client should assume the AS
> ignored the values (rather than rejected them) and effectively "try again"
> on the request. At least with scope value, I don't see any security risk
> and if the AS doesn't support those scope values, that should be clear in
> the token response.
> >>>
> >>> In general, for clients, I prefer to always be explicit with requested
> scopes rather than relying on a pre-registered default scope set.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> George
> >>>
> >>> On 10/14/16 10:13 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
> >>>> Which is exactly the crux of my question: what does a well-behaved
> client do in this situation? It asked for a value from the server, the
> server didn't return an error but gave back *nothing* in that field -- does
> the client substitute its original requested values or does it ignore its
> requested values? What are the implications (for security and
> functionality) of doing this?
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Justin
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/13/2016 7:17 PM, George Fletcher wrote:
> >>>>> Isn't the issue that the client doesn't have any clue (i.e. way to
> tell) as to whether the server simply ignored the sent value or explicitly
> rejected it as both are allowed behaviors of the AS. In this case I agree
> with Phil, that really all the client can do is try again and deal with
> rejection (or not) on an individual request basis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In general, this ambiguous behavior does make it difficult to write
> well behaved clients, and seems like something that should be addressed
> going forward.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> George
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/13/16 5:00 PM, Phil Hunt (IDM) via Openid-specs-ab wrote:
> >>>>>> The registration response is simply undefined. The client cannot
> infer any meaning by an absence.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would expect the client to retry during the authz step. It can
> always be refused again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Justin Richer <jricher at mit.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Right, the client’s not treating the server’s response as an
> error, and the client does in fact proceed — by assuming that there is *no*
> scope value to be sent in the later requests. The server doesn’t allow a
> blank or defaulted scope value in the authorization request, which makes
> subsequent connections fail. Should a server that doesn’t allow
> registration of scope values also disallow blank scope requests?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What should be the guidance for client developers who get back a
> null or empty value that they expect or want to be there? I don’t think
> it’s right to special-case the “scope” parameter here, so I’m after general
> behavior guidance that can be applied to the entire client data model. My
> interpretation has always been that the client requests and the server
> dictates the registration model, and the client reacts to that dictated
> model. The question is now what is the proper reaction?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> — Justin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Mike Jones <
> Michael.Jones at microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The server is certainly right to ignore a scope request that it
> doesn’t understand, per this language at
> https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-registration-1_0.html#RegistrationResponse
> :
> >>>>>>>> An Authorization Server MAY ignore values provided by the client,
> and MUST ignore any fields sent by the Client that it does not understand.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From an RFC 7591, the server’s behavior seems fine to me too.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591#section-2 says:
> >>>>>>>>   The implementation and use of all client metadata fields is
> OPTIONAL, unless stated otherwise.
> >>>>>>>> Likewise, it also adds:
> >>>>>>>>   The
> >>>>>>>>   authorization server MUST ignore any client metadata sent by the
> >>>>>>>>   client that it does not understand (for instance, by silently
> >>>>>>>>   removing unknown metadata from the client's registration record
> >>>>>>>>   during processing).  The authorization server MAY reject any
> >>>>>>>>   requested client metadata values by replacing requested values
> with
> >>>>>>>>   suitable defaults as described in Section 3.2.1 or by returning
> an
> >>>>>>>>   error response as described in Section 3.2.2.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Therefore, the RP can’t expect that either OpenID Connect Dynamic
> Registration implementations or RFC 7591 implementations will process any
> “scope” requests.  In either case, the RP needs to be prepared to proceed
> without server support for this optional RFC 7591 feature.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                                                       -- Mike
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: Openid-specs-ab [mailto:
> openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Justin Richer via
> Openid-specs-ab
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 1:28 PM
> >>>>>>>> To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt at oracle.com>
> >>>>>>>> Cc: openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net Ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Interaction between OIDC
> Registration and RFC7591
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree that a default scope should be allowed, but the server
> implementation in question requires all clients to send scopes at all
> times. This confuses our client code, which depends on the registration
> response to figure out                             which scopes it’s
> allowed to use. I suppose we could special-case this but it feels odd for
> the client to effectively override an AS decision.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> — Justin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt at oracle.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From a strict read of the specs, I would infer the opposite
> logic. If the scope *was* accepted a registration, that means the client
> does *not* need to provide it at authorization time as it becomes the
> default.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If scope was not accepted, it simply means defaulting not
> supported and the client should authorize as normal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Even if you disagree on this, the client should always be able to
> specify a scope regardless - the AS is always free to reject again.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Phil
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> @independentid
> >>>>>>>> www.independentid.com
> >>>>>>>> phil.hunt at oracle.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 7:51 AM, Justin Richer via Openid-specs-ab <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We've come across an interesting interaction between related
> specs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Our client software requests a "scope" value as part of its
> client metadata, as defined in RFC7591. The OIDC Registration spec does not
> define this metadata value, but of course allows it as an extension. Our
> server accepts this value as well.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We're testing against a server implementation that ignores the
> incoming "scope" metadata request entirely, since it's not explicitly
> listed in the OIDC Registration specification. Part of this ignoring
> process is that the server returns a registration object back to the client
> that omits the "scope" value. Our client, following the advice in RFC7591
> and the OIDC Registration spec both, takes this response from the server to
> mean that it doesn't have a registered scope set with the server. This
> consequently causes our client to not send a "scope" value in the
> authorization request, which causes the server to fail because the "scope"
> is required.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think the right solution to this is to revise the OIDC
> Registration specification to be a normative extension of RFC7591/RFC7592,
> as has been discussed previously on this list and, to my recollection,
> generally agreed on but not acted on yet. Software statements and other
> enhancements that are in RFC7591 would also be available as options without
> further effort.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In practice, most implementations that I've seen already mix the
> two specifications. This is the intended effect of having wire
> compatibility, of course. Changing the spec would align it better with
> reality, and help avoid cases like this one where strict interpretation
> leads to lack of interoperability.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -- Justin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>
> >> -- Roland
> >> "Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.”
> - Mark Twain
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> >> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
> -- Roland
> "Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.” -
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
-- 

Nat Sakimura

Chairman of the Board, OpenID Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20161019/a261b10d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list