[keycloak-dev] Scope parameter support

Thu Jul 7 03:45:36 EDT 2016

On 04/07/16 09:47, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper sounds interesting, but I'm not quite 
> sure how it would look like to an end-user.
>
> * Are these managed on a separate screen or on the protocol mappers 
> screen?
I am thinking about the protocolMappers screen. Just add another "type" 
of protocolMapper. This means that we don't need to add another 
concept/modelType just for scope parameter, but still we can easily 
filter/view the available mappers of type 'scope aggregator' (on the 
screen with list of all protocolMappers).
> * How do users define and view scopes, including viewing what 
> claims/mappers/roles are associated with a scope?
> * How does a user add/remove claims, protocol mappers and roles to 
> a ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper?
I am thinking that for roles, you will select the roles in same way, 
like it's in current "Scopes" tab of client (or "role mappings" tab of 
user). Probably very similar UI can be used for selecting "children" 
mappers of current protocolMapper though? Something like "Available 
mappers" and "Assigned mappers" and buttons like "Add selected" and 
"Remove selected". Also similarly like for roles, you can view in 
"Effective mappers" the list of all effective mappers in case that you 
have more composed aggregated scopeAggregatorMappers.

For example, if you have mapper for scope parameter "full-profile", 
which will have children mappers, that will point to other scope 
aggregated mappers : "profile" , "email" and "phone". Hence in 
"Effective mappers" for "full-profile" you will see all the descendants, 
not just the direct children. So you will see also all the simple 
attribute mappers like "firstName", "lastName", "birthday", "phone 
number", ...
> * Do we provide one or more built-in ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper 
> that are configurable? I assume so and that users don't have to 
> programatically define scopes.
Yes. I think that we should provide those built-in, which are specified 
by OIDC specification. Which is "profile" , "email" , "phone" , 
"address". And we will need to define mappers for all their simple 
attributes ( "birthday", "gender" , ...) . Those simple mappers like 
"birthday" won't be root mappers by default, so they won't be applied 
unless the scope parameter is used (for their parent scopeAggregatorMapper).

For backwards compatibility, we will still use the same 'simple' mappers 
like now ( username, email, full name, family name, given name) and they 
will be added to token by default. The scopeAggregator mappers (and 
their corresponding children) will be applied just if the scope 
parameter with corresponding value will be used.
> * Can a scope resolve to multiple ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper?
Yes (see above)

Marek
>
> On 1 July 2016 at 21:45, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com 
> <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     Ok, I wasn't also 100% keen about using role.
>
>     Thinking also about what Pedro mentioned before about protocol
>     mappers. So I wonder that instead of introduce new "scope"
>     concept, we just reuse protocolMappers SPI and have special impl
>     of protocolMapper, which is able to deal with scope parameter and
>     aggregate other "children" protocolMappers and roles?
>
>     Something like this:
>     - There will be new ProtocolMapper implementation like
>     ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper.  You will define value of scope
>     parameter (eg. "photo" ) in the configuration of this
>     protocolMapper. Mapper will be ignored if scope parameter value
>     with this name was not used.
>
>     - You will be able to define "children" protocolMappers and
>     "children" roles in ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper.
>
>     - For each client (and clientTemplate), we will have many defined
>     protocolMappers, but just some subset of them are "root" mappers,
>     which are applied by default. The rest of mappers will be used
>     just as "children" of root mappers. So in client model, we might have:
>     client.getDefinedProtocolMappers() // all defined
>     client.getProtocolMappers()    // just subset of defined (defacto
>     root mappers)
>
>     - For example: client will have defined protocolMappers:
>     firstName, lastName, birthday, profile, email. Just "profile" and
>     "email" will be root mappers. And "profile" is
>     ScopeAggregatorMapper for scope value "profile" and it's children
>     mappers are : firstName, lastName, birthday.
>
>     So then:
>     -- user will send "scope=profile" . Then defacto all of
>     "firstName", "lastName", "birthday", "email" claims will be
>     included in token. On consent screen will be just "Profile" and
>     "Email"
>     -- user won't send "scope=profile" . Then defacto just "email"
>     claim will be included (So for this example, email is always
>     included even if not specified by scope parameter).
>
>     - With this concept, we are able to aggregate many various claims
>     into single value of "scope" and on the consent screen have just
>     the roots. This would fit well for the default scope values
>     mentioned by OIDC specs. We are also able to define mappers
>     (claims), which will be always available even if not specified by
>     scope parameter.
>
>     - For the roles, I am not 100% sure whether to include them into
>     the concept or not? However it seems to me that rather yes. The
>     particular role will be applied into token just if all of those 3
>     conditions are met:
>     1) user is member of the role
>     2) client has scope for the role (so current "scope" tab in
>     clients will remain as is)
>     3) if role has scopePAramRequired=true, then it must be included
>     in some mapper (in other words, those roles are not included
>     directly in clientSession.getRoles , but it's the responsibility
>     of ScopeAggregatorProtocolMapper to add them into token if
>     conditions 1+2 are met).
>
>     So again, user won't see all children roles on consent screen.
>     Just the parent protocolMapper.
>
>     This will work fine with "scope=offline_access" . There will be
>     protocolMapper for "offline_access" parameter, which will
>     aggregate just one children role (the current realm role
>     "offline_access"). The offline token will be issued just if
>     accessToken will have "offline_access" permission. So if some
>     client, doesn't need offline tokens, it can just remove
>     "offline_access" protocolMapper. Also if some user shouldn't be
>     allowed to request offline tokens, admin can remove him from the
>     "offline_access" role.
>
>     - If some scope parameter is applicable for more clients, it can
>     be defined on clientTemplate.
>
>
>     PS: I will be on holidays and back on next Thursday 7th July. So
>     sorry if I won't reply immediately to next mails.
>
>     Mare
>
>
>
>     On 01/07/16 14:57, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
>
>             Reading all of this makes me think it would be cleaner to
>             introduce a
>             separate scope concept ;)
>
>             A user doesn't have a scope - a user has roles and
>             attributes. Re-using roles
>             concept for the scope just makes it feel awkward and
>             retrofitted.
>
>         +10000
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/attachments/20160707/aa7217ce/attachment.html