[Openid-specs-authzen] Comments on the Authzen API GW Profile
Michael Schwartz
mike at gluu.org
Thu Jan 23 21:14:41 UTC 2025
My understanding was that this is just finalizing the goal posts for a demo
at Gartner. I don't think anyone thinks it's mandatory or final in any
way. Which fields are mandatory in any profile is always up for discussion.
What a PDP decides to log is out of scope of AuthZen.
I did speak with two senior engineers from an API GW vendor today, and
neither one liked the idea of using a sidecar PDP without TLS, even on
localhost. From a performance standpoint, they were much more interested in
embedding a PDP in their runtime. Finally, they were also concerned not
only about the authz to route the request, but how to filter the response
from the target API. So it makes me wonder... are API GW vendors even
interested in an AuthZen interface?
The place where the Authzen sidecar really makes sense for Gluu is our
Wordpress support portal. But I guess that would be a lot less sexy for a
demo.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 2:45 PM Antonio Radesca <
antonio.radesca at nitroagility.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> Agreed, it’s fine as an example, but I am not sure it works as a standard.
> The AuthZEN API Gateway Profile feels too narrow. It works for simple cases
> like a wrapper but it ignores more complex scenarios like SSE, WebSockets,
> or HTTP/3. It also seems inconsistent because it doesn’t include gRPC or
> GraphQL, which are common in API gateways. I think this "standard" should
> first be tested by multiple vendors and get their feedback. Making it
> mandatory now, while it’s incomplete, doesn’t seem like a good idea. IMHO
> basically it should be more agnostic to be adaptable to more protocols and
> scenarios as said.
>
> Also, since this is a security tool, requests might be logged in the
> decision logs. Logging an entire POST body might not only be unnecessary
> but could also be a security risk. The same applies to headers.
>
> Adding to the security concern, why should policies for authorization
> depend on a BODY DTO? What happens if an application uses a BFF pattern,
> where the DTO for mobile is different from the one for the frontend? Should
> policies handle these differences? And what about versioning for the API
> and the policies? Coupling DTO and policies doesn’t seem like a good idea.
> Instead if the body is not used in any policy, the Zero Trust Least
> Privilege Principle should apply instead, so why pass it?
>
> Finally, there is also a latency concern when passing unnecessary
> information, as it adds processing overhead without any clear benefit.
>
> Thank you for your time
>
> *Antonio Radesca*
>
> Co-founder / Chief Technology Officer
>
>
> *M:*+373 698 04 974 *P:*+39 0835 170 0059 P: +44 20 3966 5620
>
> *E:*antonio.radesca at nitroagility.com *in:*antonioradesca
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/antonioradesca/>
>
> *W:*nitroagility.com <https://www.nitroagility.com/> *in:*nitroagility
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/20520302>
>
>
> Nitro Agility Srl - C.F./P.IVA: 01364090777 - PEC: nitroagility at pec.it
>
> SEDE LEGALE: VIA F. PARRI 44, 75100 MATERA (MT), ITALY
>
> SEDE OPERATIVA: VIA LUCANA 259, 75100 MATERA (MT), ITALY
>
> CODICE DESTINATARIO: M5UXCR1
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 8:58 PM Nicola Gallo via Openid-specs-authzen <
> openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I completely agree with @alex.babeanu at indykite.com’s comments. This is a
>> great example and a helpful recommendation article. However, I think I
>> wouldn’t feel as comfortable if it were turned into a formal standard or
>> specification.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> *Nicola Gallo*
>>
>> Co-founder / Chief Technology Officer
>>
>>
>> *M:*+39 349 3305248 *P:*+39 0835 170 0059 P: +44 20 3966 5620
>>
>> *E:*nicola.gallo at nitroagility.com *in:*nicolagallo83
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolagallo83/>
>>
>> *W:*nitroagility.com <https://www.nitroagility.com/> *in:*nitroagility
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/20520302>
>>
>>
>> Nitro Agility Srl - C.F./P.IVA: 01364090777 - PEC: nitroagility at pec.it
>>
>> SEDE LEGALE: VIA F. PARRI 44, 75100 MATERA (MT), ITALY
>>
>> SEDE OPERATIVA: VIA LUCANA 259, 75100 MATERA (MT), ITALY
>>
>> CODICE DESTINATARIO: M5UXCR1
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information, and
>> is intended only for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed.
>> The content of this message may contain private views and opinions, which
>> do not constitute a formal disclosure or commitment unless specifically
>> stated.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 at 19:02, Michael Schwartz via Openid-specs-authzen <
>> openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A few follow-up thoughts... I was just using Cedar syntax as an example
>>> for expediency, but I mentioned using URIs, URNs, ASNs, etc. are other ways
>>> to address the issue. But what I think is important is that we prefix the
>>> following: OpenID, Authzen, and API GW Profile--specifying the version.
>>> Not just "http" or "graphql", which I don't think is actually
>>> collision resistant.
>>>
>>> Just as an example in another domain, in the DID space, anyone can
>>> define a DID method. Certain DID methods started to get traction, and
>>> eventually will become "standardized". I think this is an interesting
>>> approach, because we can stay open minded here that we might not know best.
>>> So at the Interop we are showing how to profile Authzen, and the quick
>>> profile we are using is just an example of one possible profile.
>>>
>>> - Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 9:51 AM Alex Babeanu <alex.babeanu at indykite.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Finally caught up with all this... Was the consensus that this GTWY
>>>> profile was going to actually be helpful in bringing Gtwy vendors on board??
>>>> It does really seem VERY opinionated to me: it's basically telling
>>>> them HOW to build their product. It seems to me that defining a good
>>>> AuthZEN protocol that includes the protocol-side things that would be
>>>> required for their integration (Omri's the JWT Profile draft for example)
>>>> should be sufficient. This here feels to me like, saying: "here's the OAuth
>>>> spec, and oh, btw, here's how you MUST implement it". Not sure I like that
>>>> myself... The AuthZEN protocol spec should be sufficient for all vendors to
>>>> adopt in the way they see fit. I'm sure they have smart people that can
>>>> figure it out, especially if the protocol itself makes it obvious what the
>>>> expectation is...
>>>>
>>>> This could therefore be a recommendations article rather than a formal
>>>> standard/spec. My $0.02...
>>>>
>>>> And sry if the decision was already made to go ahead in this direction,
>>>> I may have missed it - been too busy.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> ./\.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 7:39 AM Michiel Trimpe via Openid-specs-authzen
>>>> <openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *Collision Resistance*
>>>>> I agree that it's probably wise to include guidance towards ensuring
>>>>> collision resistance for implementers in the base AuthZEN spec. I came
>>>>> across a similar section in the OAuth RAR specification
>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9396#name-authorization-details-types> recently
>>>>> which does a fairly good job at explaining this IMO (although I'm not a fan
>>>>> of URI's as namespaces.)
>>>>>
>>>>> After considering the GraphQL case I do agree it might be wise to give
>>>>> this profile a top-level namespace like 'http' instead. So then you'd get
>>>>> something like {"type": "http:route"} and {"type": "http:uri"} and
>>>>> {"action": "http:get"}
>>>>> That leaves API gateways free to model GraphQL calls as plain HTTP
>>>>> request using this profile or to use a (yet to be defined) GraphQL profile
>>>>> with action types like "graphql:query".
>>>>>
>>>>> *What goes where*
>>>>> Looking at terminology alone it seems logical for me to put:
>>>>> - information from/about the Uniform *Resource* Identifier in the `
>>>>> *resource*` section
>>>>> - the HTTP *method/verb* in the `*action*`section and
>>>>> - the *subject* as extracted from e.g. the Authorization header in
>>>>> the `*subject*` section
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd personally say 'body' belongs in the `action` section as well
>>>>> since it's *what* your are PUTting or POSTing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you get a sentence like "As `mtrimpe`(subject) I `POST
>>>>> {"json":"string"}`(action) to `
>>>>> http://example.com/json-store`(resource)
>>>>> <http://example.com/json-store(resource)>."
>>>>>
>>>>> Only the headers are a tough one. You can see it as metadata about the
>>>>> action but we're also parsing the Authorization header to populate the
>>>>> subject as well. Given that headers are now used for so many purposes I'd
>>>>> argue that makes most sense to put it in the `context` section.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Michiel
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* Openid-specs-authzen <
>>>>> openid-specs-authzen-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of Michael
>>>>> Schwartz via Openid-specs-authzen <
>>>>> openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net>
>>>>> *Sent:* 23 January 2025 00:37
>>>>> *To:* AuthZEN Working Group List <
>>>>> openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net>
>>>>> *Cc:* Michael Schwartz <mike at gluu.org>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-authzen] Comments on the Authzen API GW
>>>>> Profile
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are some more comments about Omri's "AuthZEN REST API Gateway
>>>>> Profile proposal" we've been so heatedly discussing, described here:
>>>>> https://hackmd.io/MTJPf_vzSmubctNtHis99g
>>>>>
>>>>> I know there is a time challenge around the interop, so I'll try to be
>>>>> brief. BTW, I very likely won't be at the meeting next week, so it would be
>>>>> great if we could have this conversation in the mailing list (or the OIDF
>>>>> Slack...).
>>>>>
>>>>> My first suggestion is that the "type" values should be collision
>>>>> resistant. For example, here are some types and what I might like better
>>>>> (just suggestions...)
>>>>> - In the Subject, *type "user"*. What about: "OpenID Authzen API
>>>>> GW Profile 0.1 User", "OpenID::Authzen::API-GW::0.1::User", or
>>>>> https://openid.net/authzen/types/User" (today the best practice for
>>>>> OAuth scopes is to use a unique URI)
>>>>> - In the Action, *type "GET"*, to "OpenID::Authzen::API-GW::GET"
>>>>> (or one of the other formats above)
>>>>> - In the Resource,* "type": "route"*, -->
>>>>> "OpenID::Authzen::API-GW::0.1::Route"
>>>>> - In the Context, the type is missing... maybe Contexts don't have
>>>>> types in Authzen... but I would define it anyway as something like
>>>>> "OpenID::Authzen::API-GW::0.1::Context".
>>>>>
>>>>> While you "could" put information anywhere, I find the organization of
>>>>> the request in the current proposal very confusing. I don't understand why
>>>>> half the data about the request is in the resource (like the params), but
>>>>> the other half is in the Context (like the body). There is no clean
>>>>> explanation for that organization. I would like to suggest that an easy
>>>>> explanation might be to say the request itself is put in the resource --
>>>>> url, headers, body. And all the information added by the API GW -- time of
>>>>> day, network, etc. -- is in the Context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having the Profile version in the type is also important. API GW
>>>>> plugin developers will write against a certain version, so if a PDP is
>>>>> expecting a different version, things may break.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that optionality is the enemy of interoperability. But at
>>>>> this phase, I feel like this current proposal is too opinionated. IMHO, we
>>>>> want to invite the API GW community to come up with more innovative ideas
>>>>> for how to add new subject, action, resource or context types. For example
>>>>> we need different actions and resources for GraphQL. So I'd like to see the
>>>>> proposal be more extensible, which always ends up being good for a spec.
>>>>> Maybe a vendor won't support every API GW Profile feature (e.g. a GW may
>>>>> not support GraphQL). Then we're not saying there is one "right" way...
>>>>> we're giving a way to define different ways, and then when adoption becomes
>>>>> clear, we can promote or demote schemas.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 1:42 AM Omri Gazitt via Openid-specs-authzen <
>>>>> openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Michael, Michiel, and Julio for your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been pondering this for the last couple of days and have come
>>>>> to the conclusion that we are trying to represent two separate scenarios in
>>>>> the same profile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Julio is exactly right on all counts:
>>>>>
>>>>> - the proposal I reviewed in the meeting is meant for
>>>>> "medium-grained authz", but I agree that fine-grained authz is a valid
>>>>> scenario as well
>>>>> - the question you're asking in "medium-grained authz" is "can
>>>>> this subject invoke the route represented by { HTTP method, HTTP route }"
>>>>> - "route" is meant to be an OpenAPI path template, which is widely
>>>>> implemented by many HTTP frameworks / API gateways. These pieces of
>>>>> software typically make the matched route available in the request or in
>>>>> some developer-accessible context
>>>>>
>>>>> In the context of this scenario, I also agree that the JWT is
>>>>> uninteresting, and what you really as the subject is a claim inside the
>>>>> JWT. So I agree with the feedback from George, Julio, and Michael that we
>>>>> don't want the subject to be of type "JWT".
>>>>>
>>>>> Julio, your memory is very good. We considered RFC 9493 as a way to
>>>>> represent subjects, but realized that we were conflating "format" (e.g.
>>>>> "JWT", "email", etc) and the "type" ("user", "identity", etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> Stepping back, I do think we can represent the two scenarios in a
>>>>> single profile.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the generic fine-grained authz scenario (where every field in the
>>>>> HTTP request information model is essentially an "attribute" that a policy
>>>>> can reason over), we want the API gateway to pass along most/all of the
>>>>> fields in the HTTP request information model, and what is placed in the
>>>>> required fields isn't all that important. The PDP's policy will likely be
>>>>> written around the various properties in the information model (subject,
>>>>> action, resource, context) and not the required fields.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the medium-grained authz scenario, what we pick for the required
>>>>> fields actually matters more, because we are designing an authorization
>>>>> protocol for HTTP routes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "default" mapping for this scenario feels to me like the following
>>>>> (in pseudo-code):
>>>>>
>>>>> {
>>>>> "subject": {
>>>>> "type": "user",
>>>>> "id": "<decode_jwt(request.headers["authorization"]).sub>"
>>>>> },
>>>>> "action": {
>>>>> "name": "<request.method>"
>>>>> },
>>>>> "resource": {
>>>>> "type": "route", // or "uri" if "route" is not available
>>>>> "id": "<request.route>", // or "uri" if "route" is not available
>>>>> "properties": {
>>>>> // uri components, path parameters, query (or query parameters
>>>>> if they get parsed)
>>>>> },
>>>>> "context": {
>>>>> "headers": [],
>>>>> "body": ...
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> For the fine-grained authz scenario, each API request (and its
>>>>> corresponding filter) essentially has its own contract with the PDP. What
>>>>> is most important for this scenario is a predictable way of mapping the
>>>>> HTTP request information model into the AuthZEN information model. The PDP
>>>>> policy will lift whatever fields it wants out of the AuthZEN request, and
>>>>> use those fields in the policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, if (as Michael suggests) the PDP really wants the encoded
>>>>> access token as the subject and will process whatever it wants to extract
>>>>> out of that, this is easy to do by writing a policy that extracts that
>>>>> field out of context.headers["Authorization"].
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, it stands to reason that the mapping sketched out above
>>>>> would work for the (more constrained) medium-grained authz scenario, and
>>>>> the (less constrained) fine-grained authz scenario.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 7:28 AM Julio Auto De Medeiros (BLOOMBERG/ 731
>>>>> LEX) via Openid-specs-authzen <openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of thoughts:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. On the matter of "/api/v1/pets/{id}", my understanding was that no
>>>>> replacement/rewriting was being proposed. Authorizing on that would have
>>>>> the meaning of "principal can POST on some pet" (non-pet-ID-specific). The
>>>>> pet-specific authorization would only happen later, at the actual API
>>>>> provider. In other words, the API gateway would only perform
>>>>> "medium-grained" (as Omri put it) authorization, and the API provider would
>>>>> do fine-grained authorization. I also understood that it didn't mean that
>>>>> API gateways weren't allowed do fine-grained authorization, but more of a
>>>>> question of picking the example/use case to include in the profile.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. George (IIRC) had a good point on the JWT subject 'type', in that
>>>>> previously the authzen spec evoked differences between type and "format".
>>>>> Subject types would be things "user", "group", "workload", I reckon. So, in
>>>>> that spirit, perhaps the example in the profile would better read:
>>>>> {
>>>>> "subject": {
>>>>> "type": "user",
>>>>> "id": {
>>>>> "format" : "JWT",
>>>>> "jwt": "eyJhb..."
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Having that said, I'm of the opinion that the JWT doesn't belong in
>>>>> the subject at all, but rather in the context. Conceptually, I think the
>>>>> subject identifier is of the format 'email' and its value is '
>>>>> john.doe at acmecorp.com', the JWT being sent in the 'context' mostly to
>>>>> allow for identity validation. But I understand the concern with giving the
>>>>> gateway the "burden" of deserializing the JWT to extract the subject ID.
>>>>>
>>>>> From: openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net At: 01/15/25 04:33:30
>>>>> UTC-5:00
>>>>> To: openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net
>>>>> Cc: Michiel.Trimpe at VNG.NL
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-authzen] Comments on the Authzen API GW
>>>>> Profile
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see my responses in-line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Michiel
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* Openid-specs-authzen <
>>>>> openid-specs-authzen-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of Michael
>>>>> Schwartz via Openid-specs-authzen <
>>>>> openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net>
>>>>> *Sent:* 15 January 2025 02:51
>>>>> *To:* AuthZEN Working Group List <
>>>>> openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net>
>>>>> *Cc:* Michael Schwartz <mike at gluu.org>
>>>>> *Subject:* [Openid-specs-authzen] Comments on the Authzen API GW
>>>>> Profile
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the feedback on the discussion about the API GW authzen
>>>>> profile that I also posted on OpenID Authzen Slack for the official mailing
>>>>> list record:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. IMHO, the Resource type should be "HTTP_Request" not "path" --
>>>>> there is always way more to an API proxy decision than just a path. And the
>>>>> path itself is not even enough to uniquely identify a resource. The
>>>>> entitlement request is to perform an HTTP Request with a certain method and
>>>>> context--not to just access a certain path.
>>>>>
>>>>> > I spent quite a bit of time pondering the alternatives and given
>>>>> that we are looking for common identifier for a resource in the context of
>>>>> HTTP REST request; the Uniform Resource Identifier (a.k.a. `uri`) does
>>>>> really seem like the optimal fit.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. We can define a minimum required schema but allow room for
>>>>> extension. I guess what I'm wondering is if we can reduce the scope of this
>>>>> profile more.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. A URL may include schema, host, port, path, query, and fragment.
>>>>> Also, I wonder if the host should allow for policies based on the domain,
>>>>> i.e. for google.com domain do this.. for gmail.com domain... do
>>>>> something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> > That can be done using a simple "eq 'google.com' or endsWith '.
>>>>> google.com'" expression right? Determining what's colloquially
>>>>> understood as "the domain" requires an up-to-date TLD list to disambiguate
>>>>> e.g. "smtp.local" hostnames which are perfectly valid as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. The HTTP request includes url , headers, body . These are all
>>>>> things the developer is sending from Postman in the request. IMHO, Context
>>>>> should be for data that is external to the resource, like the time of day,
>>>>> which you don't send in the Postman request.
>>>>>
>>>>> > From my perspective the Subject, Action and Resource is the
>>>>> information model of the authorization request. In the Dutch standard we'll
>>>>> also recommend implementers to define their AuthZEN information model up to
>>>>> the same standard of quality as their domain model. That includes defining
>>>>> syntax, semantics, constraints and relations for everything in their domain
>>>>> specific AuthZEN information model.
>>>>> When viewed from that perspective the "raw JWT" token or "raw X509
>>>>> certificate" feel more like an implementation detail. That is why I
>>>>> suggested moving them to context.
>>>>> For headers I can also make a case that they're properties
>>>>> describing/annotating the action that you intend to take (e.g. Accept
>>>>> headers request specific the type of content you wish to GET) so that it
>>>>> would make sense to include them in the `action` instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. It's unclear why the sample shows the route as ".../pets/{id}". The
>>>>> request would be for an exact path3. It may seem trivial, but we don't
>>>>> want to define any kind of replacement or regex syntax here.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Route here refers to the something like "path templates" concept as
>>>>> described in e.g. https://swagger.io/specification/#paths-object or
>>>>> the router concept from SPA's like you e.g.
>>>>> https://www.w3schools.com/react/react_router.asp
>>>>> That's what you will generally want to base your policies on if
>>>>> they're available.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. For the resource id (or the subject id), why not make it a hash of
>>>>> the properties? That way it will be unique, and represent the totality of
>>>>> the request. It's really quick and easy for the API gateway to generate a
>>>>> sha-256 hash.
>>>>> > What value would that add over leaving it empty
>>>>> then? Consistent JSON hashing is also surprisingly difficult as JSON
>>>>> objects are specified to be unordered
>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7159.html#section-1> .
>>>>>
>>>>> 7. I really don't like the subject sent as "JWT" with the value as the
>>>>> id. At a minimum, you should use the fingerprint of the token, and not the
>>>>> token itself. Perhaps it would be better to send client claims in the
>>>>> subject properties, like client_id, scopes, and allow for extension for
>>>>> customers who have custom access token claims?
>>>>> > I agree with this for the same reason I gave on #4.
>>>>> For me it still feels logical to define it as the value of 'sub' in
>>>>> the JWT token by default and provide the additional JWT parameters in the
>>>>> `subject.properties` to disambiguate that further if needed. That same
>>>>> pattern can then also be applied to X509/mTLS since they also have a
>>>>> Subject field that is generally enough but sometimes needs additional
>>>>> properties to be provided.
>>>>> I can also think of lots of counter examples though. An API gateway
>>>>> that resolves several different authentication patterns to the same
>>>>> identity probably wouldn't too happy to be forced to have a subject type
>>>>> for each authentication pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>> 8 .For the resource... what about something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "type": "AuthZen::HTTP_REQUEST",
>>>>> "id":
>>>>> "31d342599750a22f90a1d6b3d765549231e6b3091530f8f813e2f754e9d62422",
>>>>> "properties": {
>>>>> "header": {
>>>>> "Accept": "application/json",
>>>>> "User-Agent": "AuthzenClient/1.0",
>>>>> "Host": "www.acme.com",
>>>>> "Content-Type": "multipart/form-data"
>>>>> },
>>>>> "url": {
>>>>> "scheme": "https",
>>>>> "host": "www",
>>>>> "domain": "acme.com",
>>>>> "port": 443,
>>>>> "path": "/protected",
>>>>> "query": "query": {
>>>>> "param1": "value"
>>>>> }
>>>>> "fragment": "TOC"
>>>>> },
>>>>> "body": {
>>>>> "form1": {
>>>>> "field1": "value1",
>>>>> "field2": "value2"
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> Michael Schwartz
>>>>> Glue
>>>>> Founder/CEO
>>>>> mike at gluu.org
>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/nynymike
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
>>>>> This message may contain confidential or legally privileged
>>>>> information.
>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the
>>>>> sender by reply e-mail that you received this message, and delete this
>>>>> e-mail from your system.
>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Openid-specs-authzen mailing listOpenid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.nethttps://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-authzen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Openid-specs-authzen mailing list
>>>>> Openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net
>>>>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-authzen
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Openid-specs-authzen mailing list
>>>>> Openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net
>>>>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-authzen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
>>>>> This message may contain confidential or legally privileged
>>>>> information.
>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the
>>>>> sender by reply e-mail that you received this message, and delete this
>>>>> e-mail from your system.
>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation
>>>>> --
>>>>> Openid-specs-authzen mailing list
>>>>> Openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net
>>>>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-authzen
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alex Babeanu
>>>> Lead Product Manager, Access Management
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> t. +1 604 728 8130
>>>> e. alex.babeanu at indykite.com
>>>> w. www.indykite.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
>>> This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the
>>> sender by reply e-mail that you received this message, and delete this
>>> e-mail from your system.
>>> Thank you for your cooperation
>>> --
>>> Openid-specs-authzen mailing list
>>> Openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net
>>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-authzen
>>>
>> --
>> Openid-specs-authzen mailing list
>> Openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net
>> https://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-authzen
>>
>
--
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*
This message may contain confidential or
legally privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that you received this
message, and delete this e-mail from your system.
Thank you for your
cooperation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-authzen/attachments/20250123/57564a4f/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Openid-specs-authzen
mailing list