Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow up to: #1084
This PR separates access tokens from id tokens, and removes overly-restrictive validation of them. As mentioned in #1084 (comment), the OAuth2 + OIDC specs do not require access tokens to be JWTs. This means that opaque tokens, which have no defined shape, are perfectly valid. Thus, it is a deviation from the spec to require them to be a JWT.
Further, this deviation from the spec blocks real-world use cases without much gain. While it is nice to check token validity on the client, this client-side check is inherently stale (e.g. revocations, TOCTOU diff, etc...). So graceful handling of said invalid token is probably desirable regardless?
Specific example / use-case:
Google uses exactly this opaque access token format. These access tokens can be used to authenticate agains GKE clusters. The current behavior blocks this use case unnecessarily.
I am aware of Google's
gcloudkubectl plugin. There are several reasons kubelogin is much preferable, including:gcloudcli + mass of python deps/components