IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] JWT + OAuth Request

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 04 October 2018 13:45 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 B1AEB130E65 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 06:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 mSrn7OyTbrX2 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 06:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52D97130EA4 for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 06:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19F420090; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:44:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 982BF1D24; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:44:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9563AAE8; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:44:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
cc: ace@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <037301d45b84$29065ac0$7b131040$@augustcellars.com>
References: <037301d45b84$29065ac0$7b131040$@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:44:59 -0400
Message-ID: <20784.1538660699@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/xn8oXCbOmIkD83tObIzM5XytQxQ>
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 13:45:04 -0000

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?)

    > 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 =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email