[Openid-specs-authzen] Comments on the Authzen API GW Profile
Alex Babeanu
alex.babeanu at indykite.com
Fri Jan 24 18:36:24 UTC 2025
Hi there,
The important part in Omri's email I think is: "It is meant to be a
starting point for API gateway vendors and PDP vendors to be able to
implement an interop scenario for an event we are having in March,"
--> ok so this is not a spec, that wasn't clear to me. So let's not write
it as one. It's a definition for a specific event: the March interop. Sure
why not. But again, this is more in the line of the previous docs you
created for past interops Omri. Again, make it an article, or an opinion
piece on how GTwy vendors *could* use AuthZen.
--> if we want Gtwy vendors to map stuff in a specific way, we should just
call it out in the Authzen protocol itself, and assume they're smart enough
to figure out how to map their "stuff" (route and all) into it. I.e., let's
not write a design spec for them. This document still reads like a design
spec, it's something I'd give my engineers to work on...
So it might be easier to agree on this if framed like that?
If this is just for the interop, then yeah I don't have a pb with the doc,
if Gtwy vendors find it helpful, good...
My $0.02..
cheers,
./\.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 5:38 AM Michael Schwartz via Openid-specs-authzen <
openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net> wrote:
> I disagree with just about everything you said Omri, but let's proceed as
> you say. At least we've discussed it at this point.
>
> BTW, I don't think it's "high stakes"... this Interop doesn't matter very
> much at all. I just wanted the WG to make a good impression, and I thought
> we could put forward something more compelling.
>
> - Mike
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 12:52 AM Omri Gazitt <omri at aserto.com> wrote:
>
>> Michiel is correct on all counts in his response.
>>
>> Additional comments:
>>
>> *Scope*
>> It seems like a few people are still confused about the purpose and scope
>> of the proposal. It is meant to be a starting point for API gateway vendors
>> and PDP vendors to be able to implement an interop scenario for an event we
>> are having in March, no more, no less. I'm honestly at a loss to understand
>> why the "stakes feel so high". I've already started sharing this with API
>> gateway vendors, to ensure we have a shot of making the interop showcase.
>>
>> No doubt we learn a lot from doing this showcase... as we have with
>> previous interops at Identiverse, EIC, Authenticate, which all eventually
>> led to the AuthZEN implementer's draft.
>>
>> Also, I don't really understand the continuing comments about gRPC and
>> graphQL. The proposal is titled "HTTP REST API Gateway Profile proposal".
>> It is explicitly scoped for HTTP / REST (see "Scope
>> <https://hackmd.io/MTJPf_vzSmubctNtHis99g#Scope>" section). We can have
>> other proposals for other protocols.
>>
>> Note that NONE of this has gone into any OpenID document that looks like
>> a "spec" as of yet - we are doing the interop first, learning from it, and
>> eventually distilling the learnings into more formal documents.
>>
>> *Too opinionated*
>> The proposal suggests default mappings. Everything should be overridable
>> by a developer configuring a gateway's authzen filter. Please re-read the "
>> purpose <https://hackmd.io/MTJPf_vzSmubctNtHis99g#Purpose>" section
>> (also quoted below):
>>
>> Ideally, the filter implementation allows the developer to indicate
>> which HTTP elements (method, path, headers, body) to map into which fields
>> of the AuthZEN evaluation request.
>>
>> So why define an AuthZEN profile for API gateways? To provide a simple
>> mapping as a sensible default (which a developer can ideally override).
>>
>> This in turn can accelerate the process of enabling API Gateways to
>> easily become AuthZEN clients.
>>
>> <#m_-1979186327547575944_m_-3221772943351243300_Scope>
>> Stepping back, there are three usages that the proposal is trying to
>> cover.
>>
>> 1. PEP just puts all the HTTP fields in predictable places in the AuthZEN
>> request, and PDP has code to utilize the fields it needs in an
>> authorization policy. The benefits of this approach is that logic only
>> needs to be written in one place, and a generic AuthZEN filter can be used
>> for every endpoint that the gateway is proxying. (although, of course, each
>> of the policies will likely be different).
>>
>> This is what the "default mapping" is good for. This is what Michiel's
>> original proposal was trying to accomplish as well.
>>
>> 2. PEP allows the developer to pick what HTTP fields they want to put in
>> which AuthZEN fields. *This doesn't require a profile or spec or
>> anything. *There is what amounts to a "per-route protocol" between the
>> API gateway and the PDP. I expect most/all gateways will support this
>> usage scenario. The advantage is that the caller can tune the AuthZEN
>> payload to something that an existing policy (already running in a PDP)
>> expects. But it means code on both sides, for every route.
>>
>> 3. PEP calls out to the PDP to *Authorize access to routes. * This third
>> scenario is more narrow (and therefore more opinionated with respect to
>> "what goes where"). This is also the scenario that the interop in London
>> will focus on, and that's why I've been trying to get it written up in the
>> same proposal.
>>
>> *Where various HTTP fields go*
>> This is of course up for discussion and is ultimately a judgment call,
>> but I would suggest that for the first usage case, as long as the fields
>> are found in predictable places, the PDP can extract them in
>> predictable ways.
>>
>> For the third scenario (authorizing routes), the required fields actually
>> matter. The idea is that PDPs can have a specific policy that is written
>> around authorizing access to routes. This is why the proposal suggests
>> using subject for the subject of the request (extracted from the
>> Authorization header), HTTP method for action name, and the route as the
>> resource.
>>
>> *Type names*
>> I fail to understand the argument about type names working in various
>> languages. Simple strings work in every language. There have been suggested
>> type names in this thread that contain spaces - I think that's a very bad
>> idea, because most languages I know use spaces to separate tokens. But in
>> the end, these are strings. Making them URIs or URNs or scoped identifiers
>> just makes things harder to read and harder to construct (on the gateway
>> side) and parse (on the PDP side).
>>
>>
>> In the interest of time, I will turn my attention towards writing up the
>> actual interop document for the showcase in London (i.e. the specific
>> application routes for the Todo application and the AuthZEN payloads that
>> participating gateways are expected to send to participating PDPs for the *route
>> authorization* scenario.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 1:21 PM Michiel Trimpe via Openid-specs-authzen <
>> openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think anyone is talking about making this a mandatory standard.
>>> It’s a draft proposal to engage gateway providers that want to enable some
>>> degree of interoperability for authorizing gateway requests. Within the
>>> profile pretty much everything is also optional and free-form.
>>>
>>> In essence it’s just answering the question that every gateway provider
>>> will inevitably ask: “I have a request. You have subject, action, resource
>>> and context. Where should I put what?”
>>>
>>> So far I don't think we have much opinion there at all. We just say that
>>> subject is your authorization header, action is the method, resource is
>>> route or uri and headers is context. If you want to include them, include
>>> them there.
>>>
>>> Regards, Michiel
>>>
>>> P.S. The body is required for cases where sensitive query parameters are
>>> placed in a POST body to prevent them from being logged by intermediate
>>> proxies. It should indeed only be used in such cases though which is why
>>> it would also be an optional field.
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Openid-specs-authzen <
>>> openid-specs-authzen-bounces at lists.openid.net> on behalf of Antonio
>>> Radesca via Openid-specs-authzen <openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2025 9:45:46 PM
>>> *To:* AuthZEN Working Group List <openid-specs-authzen at lists.openid.net>;
>>> mike at gluu.org <mike at gluu.org>
>>> *Cc:* Antonio Radesca <antonio.radesca at nitroagility.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-authzen] Comments on the Authzen API GW
>>> Profile
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-authzen/attachments/20250124/67ce9165/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Openid-specs-authzen
mailing list