On 12 February 2018 at 14:57, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 12/02/18 09:49, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
On 9 February 2018 at 14:30, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> started looking at OAuth Scope parameter support. Wanted to clarify some
> things before start implementing:
>
> - Client Scope will allow to group protocolMappers and Role Scope
> Mappings. Pretty similar to current Client Template
>
>
> - Do we want to get rid of "Client templates" entirely and rename them
> to "Client Scopes" ? Or introduce Client scopes as separate thing in
> addition to client templates? My vote is to rename and get rid of client
> templates. It would mean get rid of new option "Login theme" from client
> template (client scope) then? As otherwise is unclear from which Client
> Scope will client inherit it (assuming client can be inherit from
> multiple Client Scopes, not just from single Client Template like is now).
>
Removing "Login theme" from client template is fine.
Client templates do have a nice benefit of allowing defining some protocol
mappers and scope that is shared between clients. That can probably be done
by having the option to set a default scope for a client perhaps?
Yes, should work that way.
>
>
> - Client can inherit from more Client Scopes. I can see 2 groups:
> -- Default Client Scopes - Those will be applied even if not requested
> by OIDC scope parameter
> -- Optional Client Scopes - Those will be applied just if requested by
> OIDC scope parameter
>
For default client scope, is there global defaults as well as client
defaults?
Yes, I think "global defaults" will be good. Those will be added when you
create new client. You then have possibility to remove some if you want.
I am thinking that "global default" can contain the OIDC predefined scopes
(email, address, profile, phone) and the scope for all-roles described
below.
>
> - Do we still want to keep ProtocolMappers per client and
> Role-Scope-Mappings per client? I can imagine we get rid of them and let
> them to be completely inherited from "Client Scopes" . My vote is yes.
> Just afraid if there are some issues with it like:
> -- backwards compatibility and migration -- But hope that's manageable
> -- Option "Full Scope Allowed" from role scope mappings -- but that
> should be solvable too (See below)
>
Not sure about this one. Client scopes can do it all probably, but I think
we'd have to address usability here. Say all I want to do is to add a
protocol mapper to add a single claim to the token for a client then I
don't want to have to:
* Create scope
* Add protocol mapper
* Configure client to set default scope
Then I also have to somehow find the client scopes that are only used by a
single client.
Yes, I was later thinking too that it is quite problematic. Migration from
previous versions won't work (without losing some informations).
So then the question remains: How to display on the consent screen the
protocolMappers and roles, which are defined directly on the client? I was
thinking about encapsulate them into single scope on the consent screen,
something like "Client specific" scope or "Client default" scope, or
something like that?
Actually if everything becomes a client scope (aka client template). For
clients that require consents we only store the scopes that was granted.
Then the token is simply update according to the new scope config.
>
>
> - Consent screen:
> -- Currently we have set of protocolMappers and set of roles on consent
> screen. I assume we want to get rid of this and have just single thing:
> Set of client scopes. Correct?
> -- If yes, how to proceed with the protocolMappers and Role Scope
> Mappings, which are defined directly on the client? If we get rid of
> them (as I mentioned above), we don't have this issue. If we don't get
> rid of them, we can have something like "Default consent", which
> encapsulates all the protocolMappers and Role Scope Mappings declared
> directly on client. WDYT?
>
Would make a lot of sense to have a single place to define what is shown
on the consent screen. Client scopes is the place to do it.
>
>
> - Option "Is Consent Required" and "COnsent Text" on protocol
mappers -
> Do we want to remove those? I think yes.
>
+1 Not sure how that looks like for backwards compatibility though
>
>
> - Option "Full Scope Allowed" on clients and option "Scope Param
> Required" on roles.
> -- I can imagine we remove both and replace them by having special
> builtin Client Scope, which will automatically have all the roles (all
> realm roles and all client roles of all clients) added to itself.
> -- When new client is created, it will automatically have this builtin
> Client Scope added to itself - because currently newly created clients
> also have "Full Scope Allowed" ON by default.
> -- When new role is created, it will be automatically added to that
> builtin Client Scope.
> -- Admin has ability to remove the roles from this Client Scope. This
> defacto has same meaning like previously "Scope Param Required" flag on
> role, which is curently used for "offline_acces" role.
>
>
> - I was thinking about creating some UI in admin console for "Scope
> Evaluating" . Admin will see effective roles and effective
> protocolMappers based on "scope" parameter he provides. I guess this
> doesn't have so big priority, but will be good to have IMO.
>
The builtin client scope sounds like a good idea, the UI to evaluate also.
Actually I think the UI may be important to be able to easily review how a
token would look like.
>
>
> - UserConsentModel - do we remove roles and protocolMappers and replace
> them instead with Client Scopes? I think yes. Also change the
> "Applications" tab in account management accordingly and have the same
> "Client Scopes" like those, which were displayed on consent screen.
>
+1
>
>
> - Tokens - I think we still want to keep "Effective" claims and
> "effective" roles in tokens as is now? At least in first iteration.
>
Do we perhaps need to introduce revisions for client scopes instead? That
way we can just track the scope + version for a token.
We talked about revisions before in this document
https://docs.google.com/
document/d/1C1vFhyGPBOnN3pprw6XPZnK08azyTm-HVIqO9dY3aTY/edit in similar
context.
If I remember correctly, the idea is, that you increase revision number of
the Client Scope always when you add/update/remove protocolMapper or role
scope mapping, is it correct? But what you would do when you detect that
revision number on the token don't match with current revision of scope?
Automatically reject the token? That means that always when new
protocolMapper is added or updated, all refresh tokens (and offline) tokens
are dropped. Sounds quite problematic IMO.
IMO for now, the things in the token can be unchanged and refactoring it
can be independent on rest of the work IMO. I can try to figure if
something can be done based on the remaining time in the sprint...
Marek
>
> WDYT?
>
> Marek
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>