Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER

> All of this points at a bigger question to the community: if we choose
> not to provide a flow implementation in libpq, is adding OAUTHBEARER
> worth the additional maintenance cost?

> My personal vote would be "no". I think the hook-only approach proposed
> here would ensure that only larger providers would implement it in
> practice

Flow implementations in libpq are definitely a long term plan, and I
agree that it would democratise the adoption.
In the previous posts in this conversation I outlined the ones I think
we should support.

However, I don't see why it's strictly necessary to couple those.
As long as the SASL exchange for OAUTHBEARER mechanism is supported by
the protocol, the Client side can evolve at its own pace.

At the same time, the current implementation allows clients to start
building provider-agnostic OAUTH support. By using iddawc or OAUTH
client implementations in the respective platforms.
So I wouldn't refer to "larger providers", but rather "more motivated
clients" here. Which definitely overlaps, but keeps the system open.

> I'm not understanding the concern in the final point -- providers
> generally require you to opt into device authorization, at least as far
> as I can tell. So if you decide that it's not appropriate for your use
> case... don't enable it. (And I haven't seen any claims that opting into
> device authorization weakens the other flows in any way. So if we're
> going to implement a flow in libpq, I still think device authorization
> is the best choice, since it works on headless machines as well as those
> with browsers.)
I agree with the statement that Device code is the best first choice
if we absolutely have to pick one.
Though I don't think we have to.

While device flow can be used for all kinds of user-facing
applications, it's specifically designed for input-constrained
scenarios. As clearly stated in the Abstract here -
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8628
The authorization code with pkce flow is recommended by the RFSc and
major providers for cases when it's feasible.
The long term goal is to provide both, though I don't see why the
backbone protocol implementation first wouldn't add value.

Another point is user authentication is one side of the whole story
and the other critical one is system-to-system authentication. Where
we have Client Credentials and Certificates.
With the latter it is much harder to get generically implemented, as
provider-specific tokens need to be signed.

Adding the other reasoning, I think libpq support for specific flows
can get in the further iterations, after the protocol support.

> in that case I'd rather spend cycles on generic SASL.
I see 2 approaches to generic SASL:
(a). Generic SASL is a framework used in the protocol, with the
mechanisms implemented on top and exposed to the DBAs as auth types to
configure in hba.
This is the direction we're going here, which is well aligned with the
existing hba-based auth configuration.
(b). Generic SASL exposed to developers on the server- and client-
side to extend on. It seems to be a much longer shot.
The specific points of large ambiguity are libpq distribution model
(which you pointed to) and potential pluggability of insecure
mechanisms.

I do see (a) as a sweet spot with a lot of value for various
participants with much less ambiguity.

> Additionally, the "issuer" field added here is not part of the RFC. I've
> written my thoughts about unofficial extensions upthread but haven't
> received a response, so I'm going to start being more strident: Please,
> for the sake of reviewers, call out changes you've made to the spec, and
> why they're justified.
Thanks for your feedback on this. We had this discussion as well, and
added that as a convenience for the client to identify the provider.
I don't see a reason why an issuer would be absolutely necessary, so
we will get your point that sticking to RFCs is a safer choice.

> The patches seem to be out of order now (and the documentation in the
> commit messages has been removed).
Feedback taken. Work in progress.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 2:44 PM Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 12:03 PM Andrey Chudnovsky
> <achudnovskij(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > 2. Removed Device Code implementation in libpq. Several reasons:
> > - Reduce scope and focus on the protocol first.
> > - Device code implementation uses iddawc dependency. Taking this
> > dependency is a controversial step which requires broader discussion.
> > - Device code implementation without iddaws would significantly
> > increase the scope of the patch, as libpq needs to poll the token
> > endpoint, setup different API calls, e.t.c.
> > - That flow should canonically only be used for clients which can't
> > invoke browsers. If it is the only flow to be implemented, it can be
> > used in the context when it's not expected by the OAUTH protocol.
>
> I'm not understanding the concern in the final point -- providers
> generally require you to opt into device authorization, at least as far
> as I can tell. So if you decide that it's not appropriate for your use
> case... don't enable it. (And I haven't seen any claims that opting into
> device authorization weakens the other flows in any way. So if we're
> going to implement a flow in libpq, I still think device authorization
> is the best choice, since it works on headless machines as well as those
> with browsers.)
>
> All of this points at a bigger question to the community: if we choose
> not to provide a flow implementation in libpq, is adding OAUTHBEARER
> worth the additional maintenance cost?
>
> My personal vote would be "no". I think the hook-only approach proposed
> here would ensure that only larger providers would implement it in
> practice, and in that case I'd rather spend cycles on generic SASL.
>
> > 3. Temporarily removed test suite. We are actively working on aligning
> > the tests with the latest changes. Will add a patch with tests soon.
>
> Okay. Case in point, the following change to the patch appears to be
> invalid JSON:
>
> > + appendStringInfo(&buf,
> > + "{ "
> > + "\"status\": \"invalid_token\", "
> > + "\"openid-configuration\": \"%s\","
> > + "\"scope\": \"%s\" ",
> > + "\"issuer\": \"%s\" ",
> > + "}",
>
> Additionally, the "issuer" field added here is not part of the RFC. I've
> written my thoughts about unofficial extensions upthread but haven't
> received a response, so I'm going to start being more strident: Please,
> for the sake of reviewers, call out changes you've made to the spec, and
> why they're justified.
>
> The patches seem to be out of order now (and the documentation in the
> commit messages has been removed).
>
> Thanks,
> --Jacob