Skip to content
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

Decide the fate of the site claim #5

Open
bbockelm opened this issue Jul 24, 2017 · 0 comments
Open

Decide the fate of the site claim #5

bbockelm opened this issue Jul 24, 2017 · 0 comments

Comments

@bbockelm
Copy link
Contributor

In the first version of the claims language document, I laid out a site claim. This is meant to correspond to the idea if a site name within a grid community.

It's a problematic concept, to be honest:

  • It's not a standardized attribute - we'd like to hew as closely to claims found in OAuth2 or OIDC.
  • Site names are not standardized or globally unique. The correct site name depends on the context.
    • For example, do I work at University of Nebraska, Nebraska, or T2_US_Nebraska? It depends on whether you ask the OSG, the WLCG, or CMS.
    • This opens up the door to potential misconfigurations. How would you express such a thing in a config file? I think your service would have to maintain a mapping between issuer and correct site names.

The perceived value was the ability to issue a token that could interact with any storage endpoint associated with a site. However, how often do we expect to not know the correct value of aud when the token is requested (or attenuated)?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant