-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
Migrate from openEO-specific tokens to JWT #558 #567
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
base: draft
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
One conflict that I'm still pondering on: The basic auth option does not play nicely with JWT I think. The point of basic auth is to have a very simple, low overhead auth mechanism (a single To support JWT and the related mechanisms however you need to do quite a bit more: you have to set up an internal issuer service, possibly manage secrets (for signing), support multiple extra endpoints ( I'm not sure we should aim for removal of the openEO token format, as it will make basic auth practically unusable. I would aim for something like:
|
|
Is that really the case? Can't you just create a JWT using one of the JWT libraries? JWT is completely independant of OIDC, you certainly don't need the extra endpoints. https://jwt.io |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
some additional suggestions to further clarify the subtle differences between access and bearer tokens
Creating JWT tokens is indeed not a problem. The problem is that the backend must decode and verify that the tokens effectively come from the trusted OIDC issuer. So as far as I currently understand, you need one of:
And I even think that the second option is necessary to obtain extra info that is not in the token itself (e.g. user roles or that virtual org membership stuff from EGI) Using |
|
Well, but if the backend detects that it's from basic (e.g. by including that into the JWT), it can just skip all OIDC stuff and just check whether that token is valid. Whatever that means for the Basic JWT tokens, is up to the provider to decide. I don't really see a big difference to before, except that it's now JWT encoded. I'll go through the proposed textual changes after next week. :-) |
Co-authored-by: Stefaan Lippens <soxofaan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Stefaan Lippens <soxofaan@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Stefaan Lippens <soxofaan@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
did another quick review round
|
@soxofaan I think all comments have been resolved. Can you re-review, please? |
Closes #558 and #338
Should be fully backward compatible as specified.