Skip to content

Guidance on what authorization means for MQTT in NMOS Systems #6

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

Open
garethsb opened this issue Oct 16, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

Guidance on what authorization means for MQTT in NMOS Systems #6

garethsb opened this issue Oct 16, 2020 · 4 comments
Milestone

Comments

@garethsb
Copy link
Contributor

IS-05 defines Sender/Receiver transport parameters for MQTT, including broker_authorization, but the definition of that parameter is fairly minimal:

Indication of whether authorization is used for communication with the broker. If the parameter is set to auto the Sender or Receiver should establish for itself whether authorization should be used, based on a discovery mechanism or its own internal configuration.

On the other hand, the MQTT spec, Authentication of Clients by the Server, is also very noncommittal, mentioning multiple possible authorization mechanisms (OAuth 2.0 tokens, client TLS certificates, etc.) as well as the basic username/password option in the CONNECT Packet.

Broker implementations support for these different techniques is variable.

Some guidance in BCP-003-02 would be good... or failing that, at least a statement that it's out of scope, must be configured out-of-band, perhaps with the link to the spec above?

@peterbrightwell
Copy link
Contributor

We're not sure what the guidance should be at this time. Revisit for v1.1.

@garethsb
Copy link
Contributor Author

garethsb commented Oct 22, 2020

@peterbrightwell Really close this issue? Not better to move to a v1.1 milestone? Or are the things that are out of scope for v1.0 tracked somewhere else visible?

@peterbrightwell peterbrightwell added this to the v1.1 milestone Oct 22, 2020
@peterbrightwell
Copy link
Contributor

Agreed yes and now marked v1.1

@peterbrightwell
Copy link
Contributor

Discussed on call. We don't know at the moment about feasibility -- this could be looked at post v1.0 publication. It's potentially quite a big piece of work? We know we can secure IS-07 through WebSockets so it's not such a blocker to adoption if not in v1.0.

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

2 participants