Re: [Ace] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tiloca-ace-revoked-token-notification-04.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 03 March 2021 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BC73A1C01 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:07:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Lb9HGHigTKR for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B9C3A1BFF for <ace@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05E3389A0; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:11:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id IE8awjQA7PP8; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:11:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1143899B; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:11:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92B3885; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:07:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se>
cc: Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <6e239432-de60-6341-1c81-17a0905b6d05@ri.se>
References: <161401385754.26094.8496440307212896123@ietfa.amsl.com> <6e239432-de60-6341-1c81-17a0905b6d05@ri.se>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 17:07:07 -0500
Message-ID: <31457.1614809227@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/TYfW7aT8dR7sXDvIcJfHOVTJWeA>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tiloca-ace-revoked-token-notification-04.txt
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 22:07:18 -0000

Marco Tiloca <marco.tiloca@ri.se> wrote:
    > We have recently submitted an updated version of
    > draft-tiloca-ace-revoked-token-notification

    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tiloca-ace-revoked-token-notification-04

I hadn't noticed this document before.
I will say that I'm skeptical about the use cases.
I took a quick read through section 1.
{If I had to make allusions to PKIX, I wonder if isn't more like an
"OCSP"-staple than a CRL}

> For a Client to
>    access the Resource Server, the Client must present the issued Access
>   Token at the Resource Server, which then validates and stores it.

I guess the "stores it" seems surprising to me.
I think that it might be worth clarifying that it's the RS that would be
subscribed to the TRL on the AS.   I think that the Intro should discuss
Client vs RS code, and if there is a goal to require code changes at both
ends or not.

Your protocol looks (at a quick scan) is very well worked out, but I don't
know enough about when this would be used to understand what tradeoff you have made.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide