I will try to summary what I had in mind. Looks like hybrid of your
* KC accessToken sent to application will contain all 3rd party tokens
and the info when are these 3rd party tokens going to expire
* Refreshing KC accessToken from application *will not* refresh 3rd
party tokens. Just sent the current 3rd party tokens back again in
* Adapters will have method like "updateThirdpartyToken(String
providerId, int maxRemainingExpiration)" . The semantics is similar to
the method "updateToken" from keycloak.js (ie. Give me facebook token
just if it's not going to expire in next 10 seconds. Otherwise trigger
refresh). So refreshing of 3rd party tokens will be triggered just if
current 3rd party token is really going to expire. Refreshing will
happen through the endpoint on broker (if provider supports refreshing
tokens) or through redirect to KC with "idpHint" . Actually I don't know
if redirect support is needed as Facebook seem to be only provider,
which doesn't support token refreshing, but it has support for
long-lived tokens instead.
This should ensure minimum amount of HTTP requests between application,
auth-server and 3rd party provider. Disadvantage is bigger accessToken,
but I assume that it's better to send 1 request with 10 KBytes response
instead of 3 separate HTTP request with 1 KByte response each. Isn't it?
On 3.3.2015 05:21, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
I really think it would be a mistake to include the external tokens
into the KC token. It'll make it more complex, especially around refreshing. I
don't think it works with what the use-cases of these tokens will be. This is for
advanced use-cases and there will be distinct parts of the application that needs the
external token, which may not even be called (for example Facebook token is only used when
I click the import contact button). A final and to me the strongest argument is that one
user account may be linked to many external identities, this would imply that we may end
up refreshing many external token each time the internal token is refreshed, which most
likely would be pointless as I've stressed before an application will most likely only
be using one token at a time and only the token that is required should be refreshed not
all of them.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marek Posolda" <mposolda(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com>, keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Monday, 2 March, 2015 1:27:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] apps access to and refresh of facebook tokens
> On 27.2.2015 18:23, Bill Burke wrote:
>> A few more thoughts:
>> * Why wouldn't we just ask for long-lived tokens with a social login?
>> Why wouldn't we set the max SSO session to be shorter than the
>> long-lived token timeout? Then there is no refresh logic required
>> * Google uses refresh tokens.
>> * I don't think Twitter expires access tokens :)
>> * You could handle this generically without specific broker knowledge.
>> AccessTokenResponse from a refreshToken call could just state that the
>> adapter must redirect back to the auth server in order to execute the
> Yeah, however if you are brokering for example to 2nd Keycloak server,
> you probably don't want to redirect. As accessTokenTimeout in 2nd
> Keycloak would be like 1 minute, so adapter will need to redirect very
> I was thinking that identity provider can specify if it supports
> refreshing of tokens or not. Then:
> * For providers supporting refreshing token, adapter can handle it by
> Out-of-bound request to auth-server and auth-server can send out-of-band
> request to brokered provider to refresh 3rdp party token
> * For providers not supporting refreshing token (like Facebook) adapter
> would need to redirect
> But I don't know, maybe we don't need redirection support at all? If all
> other providers instead of Facebook supports refreshing tokens, we can
> handle all of those by OOB request and for Facebook use long-lived tokens?
>> On 2/27/2015 12:09 PM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>> FYI, Facebook has 2 types of tokens:
>>> * short lived..usually last for hours
>>> * long lived usually lasts for 60 days
>>> As Marek pointed out, token refreshes require a browser redirect for
>>> Facebook. Knowing that, a REST service is not going to be able to
>>> refresh a facebook token. Let's take this further with an example.
>>> You have a "Contact-List" service that obtains a list of contacts
>>> to display a list of contacts. The "Contact-List" service has to
>>> the token and the social provider type.
>>> facebook tokens. How would that even work? It would have to be done
>>> On 2/27/2015 10:57 AM, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2015 1:08 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>>> I just think we're making something quite simple into something a
>>>>> more complex for no benefit.
>>>> I think you are making our design more complex or less performant than
>>>> it needs to be. I don't want a specific endpoint just to refresh a
>>>> token for a specific broker. We're also going to want to embed
>>>> access tokens for specific keycloak nested application invocations. I
>>>> don't want a separate REST service just for that too.
>>>> I also want nested REST invocations to work without having to invoke on
>>>> the auth server for every request. The access token should have
>>>> everything the application needs so that it can reduce traffic with the
>>>> server. What if a stateless, bearer-only REST services needs the
>>>> be entirely bearer-only stateless REST services.
>>>> I don't want to require adapter specific configuration.
>>>> I the vast majority of cases, I think facebook token refreshing can be
>>>> handled automatically by the adapter and the auth-server-side configured
>>>> token policies. We can make the facebook token policy have different
>>>> configuration options to:
>>>> * never to refresh the token
>>>> * modify the access token's expiration to sync with the facebook
>>>> We could add a "scope" parameter to refreshToken endpoint to
give a hint
>>>> to the facebook token policy on whether it needs to refresh or not.
>>>> Finally, every refreshAccessToken invocation gives the auth-server the
>>>> opportunity to recheck revocation policies and upgrade/downgrade the
>>>> user's and application's permissions.
> keycloak-dev mailing list