<div dir="ltr">Thanks for the reply...some comments in-line!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:26 AM, James Henstridge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:james@jamesh.id.au">james@jamesh.id.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">2008/8/15 Scott Battaglia <<a href="mailto:scott.battaglia@gmail.com">scott.battaglia@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> <snip /><br>
><br>
> 1. Do you guys support accessing a service on behalf of a user. In CAS we<br>
> call this proxying on behalf of the user. But essentially, if you're say, a<br>
> portal, and you need to access the grades, you would retrieve a CAS proxy<br>
> ticket and give it to the grades service which would resolve that to the<br>
> user as well as the chain of where it came from.<br>
<br>
</div>There are a few models that can be used for this:<br>
<br>
1. The user goes to the grades service and requests that their data<br>
get transferred to the OpenID provider via the attribute exchange<br>
protocol. When they go to the portal site, the portal can request the<br>
data from the OP, again using attribute exchange.<br>
<br>
Of course, in this model there is no direct contact between the portal<br>
and grades service in this model, so the portal would need some way of<br>
verifying that the data it got was correct. Digital signatures are<br>
probably the answer here, but there is no standard for this yet (there<br>
was a proposal for this a while back though).</blockquote><div><br>This doesn't look like it would fit our model. Some of the services are purely RESTful or SOAP (and are currently designed to take CAS proxy tickets, which seem similar to OAuth...)<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
2. Use OAuth. The portal acquires an access token to the grades<br>
service. This involves sending the user to the grades service to<br>
authenticate (which might be done using OpenID). The portal can then<br>
use the access token to request the data directly from the grades<br>
service.</blockquote><div><br>This seems like a more viable solution. This is probably more of a OAuth user list question but I figure I'll check here first. It doesn't look like OAuth does attribute exchange, is that true? Or is there an extension we could use (or a standard way to add extensions). My guess is that would start to get a little weird because if there's no interaction then there is no way for a user to approve/deny attribute exchanges unless there's a central decision made about attribute releases (which may work for us, but probably doesn't work in a general case)<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
> Some of the other stuff is more related to local SSO needs than the actual<br>
> protocol, but I'll ask anyway:<br>
> 1. Do you support a method of determining whether someone has authenticated<br>
> already (in CAS we call it gateway)? For us it relies on the fact that you<br>
> always point to one CAS server, which obviously doesn't need to be true in<br>
> the case of OpenId. However, in the scenario where you know there is only<br>
> one authenticating server, is this possible?<br>
<br>
</div>If you are implementing a closed single sign-on system, you can do the<br>
following:<br>
1. Make the OpenID provider implement an identifier select endpoint.<br>
2. Make the OpenID provider automatically authenticate users who have<br>
already authenticated (perhaps just to known sites).<br>
3. For the relying party sites, if the user is unknown (according to<br>
local session cookie), begin an OpenID authentication request to the<br>
identifier select endpoint. The result will include the user's<br>
identity.</blockquote><div><br>The system we're building would most likely include SSO, so most of this would already happen. The additional thing CAS offers is that we won't force you to authenticate if you haven't already, but we will take advantage of the fact that you have if you did already (i.e. for a portal, if you haven't authenticated we'll just show a guest layout, but if you have, we'll actually display your layout). My guess is we'll probably have to propose our own extension for this.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
If you are designing an open system (user can use whatever provider<br>
they want), I don't think there is an answer to this (which provider<br>
are you asking whether the user is authenticated to?).</blockquote><div><br>We're actually considering developing a two-tier system. Locally, we'll still be interested in using OpenId, but we'd probably point all of our local apps to a central server. Then our central server would be able to handle local users or delegate out to other OpenId servers. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
> 2. Similar to above, we support a concept of "opting-out" and forcing<br>
> re-authentication. So an application that contains SSNs may basically tell<br>
> the authentication server, I don't care if they've authenticated already, do<br>
> it again.<br>
<br>
</div>The PAPE extension would be appropriate here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://openid.net/specs/openid-provider-authentication-policy-extension-1_0-02.html" target="_blank">http://openid.net/specs/openid-provider-authentication-policy-extension-1_0-02.html</a><br>
<br>
A relying party site can ask the OP to reauthenticate the user if they<br>
were previously authenticated more than N seconds ago (N can be zero).<br>
Of course, there is nothing to prevent an OP from lying about<br>
reauthenticating the user. If that matters to you, then only accept<br>
OpenID providers you trust.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
> The last question: We don't actually do this in CAS yet, but we've seen it<br>
> and a few people have asked for it. Is there a way to pass information<br>
> along to say something like I need them to authenticate via<br>
> username/password, or cert, or LOA2 or higher?<br>
<br>
</div>Again, the PAPE extension should handle this.</blockquote><div><br>PAPE does look like the way to go for these two things. Thanks!<br><br>-Scott<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
> Thanks for any answers you guys can provide. We'll be continuing to do<br>
> research into how OpenId2 fits into the CAS world, but I wanted to see if I<br>
> could get some of these basic protocol comparison questions out of the way.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><font color="#888888">James.<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>