<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">+1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> openid-specs-native-apps-bounces@lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-native-apps-bounces@lists.openid.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Bradley<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mike Varley<br>
<b>Cc:</b> openid-specs-native-apps@lists.openid.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Openid-specs-native-apps] Please review specs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">People are using the id_token directly as an access token. If the local AS is issuing JWT access tokens and the RS can verify the signature it should work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't personally think that is the best design, though it is the simplest if you can live with pushing the processing logic into the RS. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">It probably depends on how many AS you need to deal with and how many RS you have. With more than one RS , or with multiple sources of assertions you are probably better off centralizing it.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John B.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:51 PM, Mike Varley <<a href="mailto:mike.varley@securekey.com">mike.varley@securekey.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi John, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are you saying (in the picture you provided) would (could) the call to the 3rd party TE be optional? i.e., the TE could return an id_token targeted to the 3rd party API, that acts as an access token?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">MV<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Feb 13, 2014, at 11:19 AM, John Bradley <<a href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com">ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This shows using the token endpoint to side-scope a refresh token to get a id_token with a 3rd party audience using the Google Play example, then using the JWT assertion flow to exchange the id_token for a access token.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is the Google developer spec for the Play Method <a href="http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2013/01/verifying-back-end-calls-from-android.html">http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2013/01/verifying-back-end-calls-from-android.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">They don't have there Token Agent do the swap for a access token, they are handing the id_token to the app and letting it use it as an access token or exchange it in some way.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The other possibility may be to have the Appinfo endpoint return the id_token along with meta-data about what 3rd party Token endpoint needs to be used to exchange the id_token/JWT assertion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This may work better if the Token Agent is doing the exchange rather than the app.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For those not part of the Connect WG we deliberately the id_token the same format as a JWT for use in assertions. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Paul Madsen <<a href="mailto:paul.madsen@gmail.com">paul.madsen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">guys, care to swimlane that model out at websequencediagrams?<br>
<br>
paul</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2/12/14, 3:52 PM, Chuck Mortimore wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We've been thinking of a model where the RS could validate the id_token for access to it's services and exchange it via assertion flow if it needed to act on behalf of user at the RS associated with the original AS. This sounds inline
with that <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-cmort<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:39 PM, John Bradley <<a href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com" target="_blank">ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Chuck, <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will get to this over the next couple of days. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We do have the 3rd party id_tokens that can be used as JWT assertions that were added to connect for Google. In principal those should be exchanged in the assertion flow for access tokens when crossing security domains.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I suppose the type of token would depend on if the app directly accepted access tokens from the AS of the napps agent.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Apps using Google Play services directly use the id_token as a access token in general but that places a potential burden on the RS to accept tokens of different types. I prefer to use the token endpoint to exchange the assertion so the
RS only needs to worry about access tokens from it's AS whatever those happen to be.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">John B.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Feb 5, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Chuck Mortimore <<a href="mailto:cmortimore@salesforce.com" target="_blank">cmortimore@salesforce.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">One other thought - Perhaps instead of opaque access tokens for the apps, we should issue id_tokens that are audience restricted <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Chuck Mortimore <<a href="mailto:cmortimore@salesforce.com" target="_blank">cmortimore@salesforce.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Comments on Agent Core 1.0</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">5.0 - Do we need to make client credentials mandatory? Can we make this a MAY?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">7.1 - in general seems redundant to oauth/openid connect, with the exception of the AZA scope. Do we need to respecify all of this?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">7.1.1 - Why is response_type=code MUST? Is this oauth carry over? (same as my question on 5.0 I think)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">7.4.1/2 - By issuing on the token endpoint, we are basically saying that only administrative authorization models will work. If end-user authorized oauth is being used, the user doesn't have a chance to approve access to and new app.
Shouldn't we be performing a new Authorization request, rather than a straight refresh token exchange?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Comments on Agent API bindings 1.0</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2.0 - "Rather than the user individually authenticating and authorizing each native application, they do so only for the authorization agent" - same as my last comment; from an authorization model perspective, this basically kills off
end-user approval models with this profile. There's no way for the user to make effective authorization decisions for future unknown applications. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">4.0 - this seems to really be the meat of what we should specify, but the entire section is basically silent on detail. For this spec to be successful, shouldn't we take a stand and actually specify interaction patterns?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">4.1 - "The TA MUST NOT deliver a secondary access token to an application for which it was not issued." seems at odds with the rest of this section. For example, the custom scheme approach would potentially violate this on iOS. I'm not
certain there is a reliable way not to violate this when supporting an TA intiated flow.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">4.2 - We should really spec out a Native App intiated flow. It may be the only way we can reliably handle the security contraint in section 4.1. One option could be to issue a public key with the authorization request and then encrypt
the use JWE to responds, so if the Native app's custom scheme url were hijacked, the returned token wouldn't bleed to the wrong app.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Paul Madsen <<a href="mailto:paul.madsen@gmail.com" target="_blank">paul.madsen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Both core & bindings are available at<br>
<br>
<a href="http://hg.openid.net/napps/wiki/Home" target="_blank">http://hg.openid.net/napps/wiki/Home</a><br>
<br>
John has some editorial fixes to make but is hoping to combine with those with any more normative changes<br>
<br>
Our next call is Wed feb 19 @ 6 pm EST<span style="color:#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-native-apps mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openid-specs-native-apps@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">Openid-specs-native-apps@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-native-apps" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-native-apps</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Openid-specs-native-apps mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openid-specs-native-apps@lists.openid.net" target="_blank">Openid-specs-native-apps@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-native-apps" target="_blank">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-native-apps</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><NAPPS access to 3rd party based on JWT assertion..svg><smime.p7s><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>