JWT Profile Meeting

Europe/Zurich
Description

Draft agenda:

Outstanding discussion points:

  • Group syntax
  • Versioning
  • Token lifetime
  • Standardised list of Audiences
  • Identifier, where does this impact? Keep discussion in main thread
  • Sending for consultation etc
  • Refresh Token

Actions from last week:

@Mischa to check the RFC regarding Client definition

@DavidG and @Mischa to add a paragraph on Trust Broker

@Andrea to clarify use of well-known url 

@Paul to add some clear overall text :)

@Maarten to add some deployment considerations for token revocation and refresh

@Andrea to add some text on revocation flow (flows currently not included in document) 

@Hannah and @Mischa and @DavidG to speak with @Nicolas r.e. group syntax simplification

@Nicolas provide a group syntax example with AARC guidelines

ALL to comment on the document

Videoconference Rooms
WLCG_AuthZ_Meeting
Name
WLCG_AuthZ_Meeting
Description
WLCG_AuthZ_Meeting
Extension
10669715
Owner
Hannah Short
Auto-join URL
Useful links
Phone numbers
Registration
Participants

Attendees: Andrea, Nicolas, Romain, Mine, Brian, DavidC, Hannah, AlessandroDS, Maarten

Notes:

  • Group Syntax
    • REFEDS work to define SAML - OIDC group mapping, eduperson attributes. Q whether we should be following this in a "SAML-mindset"
    • Length of tokens does matter, use of groups varies by VO
    • Groups should be sent either
      • as claims in the ID token
      • as claims in the access token
      • neither of the above, but resolved, starting from an access token, leveraging the standard OpenID Connect userinfo endpoint or OAuth token introspection at the authorization server
    • Organisation claim,
      • it is also a group effectively so why separate? This is from a VOMS equivalence of having a root group for a VO. It is conceptually identical to the issuer (atm). Perhaps make the org claim optional. We need to be careful to consider the case that issuers are not tightly bound to VO.
      • the main reason to have this claim was to provide a
        short way of addressing the issuer of a token in policies at services,
        something shorter than the iss claim. While having the org claim may be
        crucial to support multi-tenant scenarios, where an  issuer can issue
        tokens for multiple organizations, it does not help much in the WLCG
        scenario, where the iss claim is mapped to a single VO. Consensus that
        the claim can be made optional.
    • DECISION: tokens are scoped to a single VO (this has been fine historically and discussion so far has centred around this)
    • Seems reasonable to have a concept of primary group, can this be the first in the list, e.g. primary fqan
    • Q points for GDB:
      • should groups be hierarchical or not? 
      • single VOs as token issuers? 
  • well-known URL  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UbbqK-0U0c_7F_MERWwzsMUV67XsdsSHscht52xav8I/edit#heading=h.x8ff4yqve2hk 
    • There are 2 standards that state how discovery should be done
      • OAuth discovery (more recent but problem with multiple issuers in multi-tenant scenario)
      • OIDC 
      • Proposal that we support OIDC because it is more widely supported
  • Revocation https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xt6NYQSpImrZkrNCE2LvtwM-0HbqcXD8f9eb7Dl6fgo/edit?usp=sharing
    • Proposal to create a document with flows, probably as a separate doc
    • Revocation is described as an OIDC standard
    • Should ensure that token consumers and issuers are able to trigger this flow, especially for long running credentials
    • Could be too prescriptive atm and makes more sense to be in a separate document
    • This is linked with the refresh token flow, maybe we need to start digging in to how refresh tokens would work for long running jobs
    • Refresh tokens are bound to clients, cannot be presented to resource providers 
  • Outstanding questions
    • which format to use for groups? something to bring up at pre-GDB perhaps

Actions:

  • @Hannah follow up on outstanding actions
    • @Mischa@DavidG trust brokerage 
    • @Maarten operational impact of token verification and validation (in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xt6NYQSpImrZkrNCE2LvtwM-0HbqcXD8f9eb7Dl6fgo/edit)
  • @Hannah make org optional
  • @Brian check that we are consistent with saying token issuer is VO
  • @Hannah send notes and schedule next call
  • @Andrea to include discovery information in main document
  • @Hannah add notion of revocation into requirements doc (if not there already)
  • @Hannah ask Andrea and Condor people to present in the next call 
There are minutes attached to this event. Show them.
The agenda of this meeting is empty