Re: [Ace] JWT + OAuth Request

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Thu, 04 October 2018 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
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 909C412958B for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 fLX_BU4vDGNu for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 023DC130E3C for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 07:55:54 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Michael Richardson' <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
CC: ace@ietf.org
References: <037301d45b84$29065ac0$7b131040$@augustcellars.com> <20784.1538660699@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20784.1538660699@localhost>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 08:00:26 -0700
Message-ID: <03d301d45bf2$fcc09600$f641c200$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFTZoccTLeV/bOEZ5u9yKg63nRqZALobkKPpfnVTrA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/j5eLnO2whWmmwTPNIHchPX0XvkE>
Subject: Re: [Ace] JWT + OAuth Request
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: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:00:40 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 6:45 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> Cc: ace@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ace] JWT + OAuth Request
> 
> 
> Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
>     > The OAuth group discovered a problem with some the names of our new
>     > OAuth fields that was caused by the fact that they have an ID that
is
>     > someplace between the IESG and the RFC Editor which introduced the
> 
> Took a moment to realize that ID = Internet Draft, rather than being a
> reference a hash key id :-) (Which document is this?)

This is JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq/

Jim

> 
>     > Why option 1 might be acceptable:
> 
> ...
> 
>     > B. If a CWT version is this is really needed, perhaps we can get a
>     > different design to be used.  Specifically, create two new CWT
claims:
>     > "oauth_req", "oauth_resp" and then place the OAuth parameters in
those
>     > fields and not make them CWT claims.  I am sure that there would be
>     > complaints about this, but much as COSE fixed problems that it saw
as
>     > being wrong, the WG could do the same thing.
> 
> I prefer this solution, but I feel unsufficiently informed about how the
above ID
> might come back to bite us.
> 
> (I can live with combining registries)
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -
> = IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>