-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Adopt Resource Indicators or similar system to limit token access to resources #82
Comments
I currently support this, with tokens issued the (Originally published at: https://www.jvt.me/mf2/2021/07/eheqe/) |
I am in favor of returning resource as the origin parameter. If we match the token introspection rfc, they use aud. I'm not sure why a parameter should change from submission to return. But worth considering re compatibility |
The reason this isn't being discussed in the Ticket Auth proposal.. https://indieweb.org/IndieAuth_Ticket_Auth is that the question of protected resources is an IndieAuth level question. Ticket Auth, AutoAuth, etc as extensions, dictate how tokens can be given to external parties for resources, not how resources work. |
Elements of RFC8707 to adopt...
Suggest that, since IndieAuth is based on the idea of URL as identity, that resources MUST be network-addressable locations, as opposed to MAY.
This suggestion begs the question, should you be able to query this somewhere...#43 ?
|
I have a few questions about how this would be used:
|
Discovery is outside of scope on the PR, but there is also the possibility the endpoint will decide on resources based on the client and/or scope, if it so chooses.
Not entirely. The scopes requested would only be understood by the micropub endpoint.
One would assume when requesting the media scope, an aware resource supporting endpoint would return the resource parameter if it so chose.
No. Because create scope does that.
That is out of scope for IndieAuth. But Ticket Auth turns that on its head and makes it the responsibility of the publisher to tell the potential consumer. The issue here is the ability to issue a token that can access specific protected resources. There could be a variety of different ways to know how to request such a token that this addition will support. And the way it is written, an IndieAuth endpoint does not have to support resource. In the proposal, it can support scope, resource, or both...but not none. So, 100% backward compatible.
Back to, resource is not mandatory. |
I think a lot of your responses make sense, but for me they are not obvious from the proposed spec changes. While the spec indicates that scope and resource may be used alone or together, that means this addition would require extra coordination for implementors that want to use IndieAuth. I think aaronpk summed this up pretty well in the indieweb-dev chat:
|
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8707 is the resource indicator specification
Suggest, unlike the specification, that resource optionally be in the return...that would allow an endpoint not requesting any specific resource to be told what the endpoint opted to grant.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: