<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
font-size: small; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline
!important; float: none;">"Implicit Code Flow" is defined.
Neither "Implicit Flow" nor "Code Flow" is defined. <br>
And that is a very secondary point in my email. <br>
What I pointed out was that perhaps a table is better as a
guidance. <br>
<br>
See my other email for the proposed text. <br>
<br>
Nat<br>
</span><br>
<br>
(2013/10/30 15:42), Mike Jones wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394377E2DBF1@TK5EX14MBXC288.redmond.corp.microsoft.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div>
<div>"Implicit Flow" is defined in the Terminology section.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<span>From:
</span><span>n-sakimura</span><br>
<span>Sent:
</span><span>10/29/2013 9:51 PM</span><br>
<span>To:
</span><span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a></span><br>
<span>Subject:
</span><span>Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Guidance on what the different
flows are for</span><br>
<br>
<div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">(2013/10/30 10:22), Mike Jones
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Several reviewers have requested
guidance on when to use the different flows. I believe
that we’d be doing a service to our readers by providing
it.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Several reviewers have objected to this
text in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#Authentication">http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#Authentication</a>
– saying that sometimes the Code flow is used even when
the client can’t maintain the secrecy of the
client_secret:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN">The Authorization Code
Flow is suitable for Clients that can securely maintain
a Client Secret between themselves and the Authorization
Server whereas, the Implicit Flow is suitable for
Clients that cannot.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I believe that that the statement would
still be true if we changed the word “suitable” to
“intended”. And then, as discussed in the F2F meeting, we
could add the sentence:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“However, the Authorization Code flow
is sometimes also used by Native applications in order to
be able to obtain a Refresh Token, even when they cannot
ensure the secrecy of the client_secret value.”</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
It does not have to be native applications. <br>
We do not have to constrain code grant for anything. <br>
<br>
Only the thing which may be worth noting is that (1) enables
client authentication for confidential clients, (2) allows
clients to obtain refresh token, (3) more secure than implicit
grant as the token is not exposed in the front channel, (4)
requires extra roundtrip compaired to the implicit, (5) Token
endpoint has to be directly reacheable from the client.
<br>
<br>
In contrast, the implicit grant will have (1) less roundtrip and
thus latency, (2) the client does not need a direct
reacheability to the server, (3) client cannot be confidential,
(4) tokens are exposed in the frong channel so inherently less
secure, and (5) you cannot get refresh token with this grant. <br>
<br>
Perhaps having tables like the following is better as the
guidance. <br>
<br>
<table class="MsoTableGrid">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="329">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Conditions /
Requirement</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">code grant</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">implicit grant</span></p>
</td>
<td width="82">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">hybrid grant</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="329">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Server is not
directly reachable from the client</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
<td width="82">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="329">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Want less round
trip</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
<td width="82">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="329">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Do not want to
reveal tokens for better security</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="82">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">(some)</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="329">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Want client
authentication</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="82">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="329">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Want refresh
token</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="82">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="329">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Slow front
channel, fast back channel</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
<td width="85">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="82">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">x</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
The same table is uploaded here: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://nat.sakimura.org/2013/10/30/guidance-on-which-grant-flow-to-use-for-openid-connect/">http://nat.sakimura.org/2013/10/30/guidance-on-which-grant-flow-to-use-for-openid-connect/</a><br>
<br>
BTW, do we still want to use the term "flow"? OAuth stopped
using the term and it uses "grant" instead. Currently, "implicit
flow" for example is not defined.
<br>
<br>
Nat<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Would that combination work for people?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Finally, I propose that we add this
guidance about the Hybrid Flow:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“The Hybrid flow enables Clients to
obtain an ID Token and/or Access Token with only one round
trip to the Authorization Server, possibly minimizing
latency, while still enabling Clients to later get tokens
from the Token Endpoint – especially a Refresh Token.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Per the decision at the F2F, all this
“guidance” text would move to the introduction.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are people good with the wording above,
or would you like to make alternative suggestions?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">
-- Mike</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-ab mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Nat Sakimura (<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>)
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Tel:+81-3-6274-1412">Tel:+81-3-6274-1412</a> 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.
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Nat Sakimura (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp">n-sakimura@nri.co.jp</a>)
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Tel:+81-3-6274-1412">Tel:+81-3-6274-1412</a> 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、申し訳ございませんが、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.
</pre>
</body>
</html>