Re: [Cwt-reg-review] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IANA #1158953] Requested review for IANA registration in draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz (cwt - CBOR Web Token Claims)

Chuck Mortimore <charliemortimore@gmail.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <charliemortimore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cwt-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cwt-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A229E3A0926; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 VUh6PoPIWbFR; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEB003A0911; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id n15so5074195wrw.13; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6Hak/mjGaAqwzX2G9qhHqjT26wwIJkvjN45dLcT4hR0=; b=aZ0AseTRlqon4rHiKwd8VY7XnWA9Ig6KWv59UYFviTYaRhH34UV4AIucnlZbe6ZppM e4LHR0lh496qt738MznK+xOHz8UTZI+kRF5j0yBcQxu04YsAWRNSu+2Y2Thr44KDqFSa 0o+etZLkxlwDGt+il3dr7UpgxBbGopNCHrlVXG6WsqqGmLOZzlCPiT3nP+TH8o1bf6Ww eiMiJXWPk7WhE22oEJa1fMvv4282GbTaDHm1BYdLT9OHvYQKJi6e5Urmw1ofdLUOwsf9 v1KKLuhPyZ1kEf3nKAHZ0MzGe1XGSnqsOVbTJnMlPY5mpWUxraSSqtbHU7MxfX8ziNAg 6QIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6Hak/mjGaAqwzX2G9qhHqjT26wwIJkvjN45dLcT4hR0=; b=I/hBhTyn2sZ3SXJoDwXng1H5qs1IR5OE4Cwg0k0mySwCNQ+Ys21QALm0Ig3LpjZBYd hNUzWJtoCGRq+3r5Jqd7FT3XMsTvp0N6Jhu2bFHMpMymaZ9VSnpZ7F1ctEtUMQbjXpPt tIi17fD+6zNSUp7iddNLNFKiEhztEu66GhGgLRFLkGnJrSB1l4v8p42pYs/Vmlc+LVYf vJkyPiuWnAinqvaXqIcFxF3tXNVhYgGLkgAPdjyo3U89dJNKVT/6wL0yxmZy1I/qgteD BnP9R88cRlNQnI6v0jM2iM2WAy95ThjnrzPFfsUYWQLESxJe7ax6Uebtk7w6W3Wl67j0 U+Kw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2SUrzD1kGZXC+GwetAD/PR1zHLFZtX0Twt12JG84U/Q290Ia+L NoXBWjrTSv/q/v7wqM8zmkej9Q8OCU+xOXNGdzQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsYSwuj2JVB6EdT1zKxd5wgV4iub+fvZ9i/87NMR+qbR4YjI4c/rmh97D+LT1o+UiD1EqQ34MNUQM9BEufSxRQ=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ef4c:: with SMTP id c12mr7431006wrp.249.1583971959041; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <RT-Ticket-1158953@icann.org> <03f0f73f-4c82-9089-0a81-471a5fb54ba8@gmx.de> <d23d83eb-44ef-bece-cfcc-61ee5d951cd8@gmx.de> <rt-4.4.3-14831-1579299068-1542.1158953-37-0@icann.org> <rt-4.4.3-21646-1582059958-678.1158953-37-0@icann.org> <BY5PR00MB06762A9651316668A1290016F5110@BY5PR00MB0676.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <rt-4.4.3-21645-1582065742-299.1158953-37-0@icann.org> <rt-4.4.3-11175-1582675119-1846.1158953-37-0@icann.org> <4788cad0-d1dc-2947-9e17-cad4f2147a7b@gmx.de> <DM6PR00MB0684B6E29343D9A1D2CAC62CF5FC0@DM6PR00MB0684.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR00MB0684B6E29343D9A1D2CAC62CF5FC0@DM6PR00MB0684.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
From: Chuck Mortimore <charliemortimore@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:12:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKzGp_6xk6nXU3q9qU0Pj+fMu8EqQ8FA7y7vCOajKEuicQc98Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Cc: Ludwig Seitz <ludwig_seitz@gmx.de>, "drafts-expert-review@iana.org" <drafts-expert-review@iana.org>, "cwt-reg-review@ietf.org" <cwt-reg-review@ietf.org>, "chuck.mortimore@visa.com" <chuck.mortimore@visa.com>, "draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz@ietf.org>, "ace@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f3f30105a09d35ca"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cwt-reg-review/X5MUGD83DXduHYSn0bqmWaed7zQ>
Subject: Re: [Cwt-reg-review] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IANA #1158953] Requested review for IANA registration in draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz (cwt - CBOR Web Token Claims)
X-BeenThere: cwt-reg-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: CWT Registry Review <cwt-reg-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cwt-reg-review>, <mailto:cwt-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cwt-reg-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:cwt-reg-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cwt-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cwt-reg-review>, <mailto:cwt-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 00:12:46 -0000

Agree with Mike's assessment.   (One caveat to that is that I'm not close
enough to CWT to understand how scare the single byte identifiers actually
are.)

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:39 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> [Adding correct e-mail addresses for Chuck, who recently joined Visa]
>
>
>
> There are two reasons that I believe not using up one of the scarce
> one-byte claim identifiers for "scope" is appropriate:
>
>    1. The claim values for scopes are not short themselves.  They are
>    sets of ASCII strings separated by spaces. So the percentage difference in
>    the total claim representation from adding a single byte will typically be
>    small.
>    2. The single-byte claim identifiers already registered at
>    https://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt/cwt.xhtml are claims that are
>    likely to be useful to diverse sets of applications, and therefore merit
>    the short identifiers; whereas, the scope claim is specific to the ACE
>    OAuth protocol and not applicable to diverse sets of applications.  It’s
>    reasonable to give protocol-specific claim identifiers 2-byte
>    representations.
>
>
>
> I’d be interested to hear from the two other designated experts on my
> assessment of the situation: Hannes and Chuck.
>
>
>
>                                                        -- Mike
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cwt-reg-review <cwt-reg-review-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of
> Ludwig Seitz
> Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 6:25 AM
> To: drafts-expert-review@iana.org; cwt-reg-review@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz@ietf.org; ace@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Cwt-reg-review] [IANA #1158953] Requested review
> for IANA registration in draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz (cwt - CBOR Web Token
> Claims)
>
>
>
> On 2020-02-26 00:58, Amanda Baber via RT wrote:
>
> > Ludwig, Hannes,
>
> >
>
> > Can you confirm that you can make the CBOR Web Token Claim change
>
> > requested below?
>
> >
>
> > We also have Chuck Mortimore listed as an expert for this registry,
>
> > but our message to his Salesforce address bounced.
>
> >
>
> > Best regards,
>
> >
>
> > Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist
>
> >
>
>
>
> I strongly disagree with the assessment that the scope claim should be
> pushed into the two-byte range.
>
>
>
> The reason we introduced the scope claim is that an ACE RS typically does
> not have a direct connection to the AS, and is therefore unable to retrieve
> the scope of an access token from other sources than the access token
> itself.  I therefore assert that ACE access tokens would often need to
> contain this claim in order to inform the RS.
>
> Since one of the major drivers of the ACE work has been to reduce the
> authorization overhead (otherwise we could just have used vanilla OAuth
> 2.0), I find it strange to needlessly add to the overhead by making the
> encoding of a frequently used claim longer than necessary.
>
>
>
> I am willing to listen to the arguments that have lead the expert reviewer
> to denying a value in the one-byte range, and discuss the reasoning further
> on list.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ludwig
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue Feb 18 22:42:22 2020, Michael.Jones@microsoft.com wrote:
>
> >> I'm mostly OK with these registrations, however, DO NOT assign the
>
> >> value 9 to "scope".   Rather, please put it in the two-byte range
>
> >> - for instance, with the value 41.
>
> >>
>
> >> -- Mike
>
> >>
>
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Cwt-reg-review
>
> >> <cwt-reg-review-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sabrina Tanamal via RT
>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 1:06 PM Cc:
>
> >> cwt-reg-review@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Cwt-reg-review] [IANA
>
> >> #1158953] Requested review for IANA registration in
>
> >> draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz (cwt - CBOR Web Token Claims)
>
> >>
>
> >> Hi all,
>
> >>
>
> >> Resending this request for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz.
>
> >>
>
> >> Thanks,
>
> >>
>
> >> Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Sat Dec 21 11:37:11 2019, ludwig_seitz@gmx.de wrote:
>
> >>>> Hello CWT registry reviewers,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> the IESG-designated experts for the CWT claims registry have asked
>
> >>>> me to send a review request to you about the claims registered
>
> >>>> here:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ft
>
> >>>> o
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> ols.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-29%23section-
>
> >>>> 8.13&a
>
> >>>> mp;data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7Ce23f64ac1ad74269c
>
> >>>> 3
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> c408d7b4b65d45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63717656
>
> >>>> 7656665548&amp;sdata=r01W5Bx0gJh9ZPH8eNS%2BY765CnGq11DkknsHYQ751Dk%
>
> >>>> 3
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> D&amp;reserved=0
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Thank you in advance for you review comments.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Regards,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Ludwig
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >> _______________________________________________ Cwt-reg-review
>
> >> mailing list Cwt-reg-review@ietf.org
>
> >> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
>
> >> .ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcwt-
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> reg-
>
> >> review&amp;data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7Ce23f64ac1ad
>
> >> 74269c3c408d7b4b65d45%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C63
>
> >> 7176567656675543&amp;sdata=XxBhQmqxGkCRiBxh0PdhX2IJD8TnbwWl%2Feo8VUsH
>
> >> Osg%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Cwt-reg-review mailing list
>
> Cwt-reg-review@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cwt-reg-review
>