Re: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in WGLC

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

I am also happy with the current audience semantics.

From: Id-event [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Phil Hunt
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:58 AM
To: ID Events Mailing List <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Id-event] "aud" vs. receiver issue raised in WGLC


All,

I am reviewing the previous feedback from WGLC and will be bringing up any unresolved issues for quick discussion/confirmation…

Following up on Marius and Henk’s comment, I am concerned that “aud” has a very specific meaning and is often tied to a security domain definition. We should not necessarily say this is the receiver though it often turns out to be. For example a RP (“aud”) has outsourced events processing to a third party (the so called receiver).

I am happy with the current claim set, but maybe some text explaining that a receiver does not have to be the aud is appropriate?  I don’t see any benefit to having a receiver claim as this could complicate processing more than its worth.

There are a few other comments in this thread, but this one seemed the most unresolved.

Phil


On Aug 3, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hello,

to me, the "audience" claim seems to be a good choice here.

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 08/02/2017 11:45 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote:

The abstract mentions "issuer" and "receiver" in the last sentence. "receiver" does not sound right (that should be used in the context of a transmitter), but I don't have a better suggestion. Audience?
The last paragraph of section 1 mentions "subscriber". I think it should be either "receiver" or "audience".
The explanation for figure 1 states that the issuer denotes the transmitter. If the issuer and the transmitter are assumed to be the same entity, then the transmitter definition in section 1.2 should make that clear.
Figure 3, I think the "sub" claim should be nested in the event, next to the issuer that provides the correct context. The "iss" and "sub" definitions in 2.1 also touch on this, providing conflicting advice.
Section 2,1, definition of "nbf". The definition says that this is the event time. I see two problems:
- the name suggest "not before", not exactly the same as event time
- there can be multiple events
maybe this claim should be dropped?
Section 2.1, definition of "exp". Omitting this claim is the short term solution to the confusion issue. Why not mention that and that it SHOULD NOT be used?
Section 2.1, definition of "events". It states that all events must refer to the same logical event. Lately in discussions we reached the conclusion that all events in a SET should be defined in the same profile, which is a stronger requirement. I think this definition should mention that.
Regarding events and profiles. There was a proposal to add a new claim to uniquely identify the profile. I think we need to discuss that.
Figure 5. Maybe a signed example would be better, especially that the next paragraph mentions that signatures or encryption should be used.
Section 4.5, second paragraph. Mentions that "nonce" is also required, but that is not actually true. Id Tokens issued at the token endpoint for example will not have it. I suggest we drop the whole paragraph.
Marius
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
   This is to announce working group last call on this draft
   (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dsecevent-2Dtoken_&d=DwIGaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=JBm5biRrKugCH0FkITSeGJxPEivzjWwlNKe4C_lLIGk&m=UUydIFEV9SQ_lw_LNE4lvS7pQLXEZEWA2F1i7bfAuUY&s=9SIT98RlAb1C9Md1W54IRl6cxjlKfjqT99u5-Ojw4Fw&e=     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dsecevent-2Dtoken_&d=DwIGaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=JBm5biRrKugCH0FkITSeGJxPEivzjWwlNKe4C_lLIGk&m=UUydIFEV9SQ_lw_LNE4lvS7pQLXEZEWA2F1i7bfAuUY&s=9SIT98RlAb1C9Md1W54IRl6cxjlKfjqT99u5-Ojw4Fw&e= >).
   Please send your comments to the list. Even if you are perfectly
   happy with the draft, please let us know that you support its
   publication as-is by posting to the list.
   Because of the summer holidays, this last call is open for 3 weeks,
   until Aug. 21.
   Thanks,
        Dick and Yaron
   _______________________________________________
   Id-event mailing list
   [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
   https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_id-2Devent&d=DwIGaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=JBm5biRrKugCH0FkITSeGJxPEivzjWwlNKe4C_lLIGk&m=UUydIFEV9SQ_lw_LNE4lvS7pQLXEZEWA2F1i7bfAuUY&s=jX1QgcFI8umtt8pEkthXa3uL_TsJINLVTXORUpSDnvA&e=     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_id-2Devent&d=DwIGaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=JBm5biRrKugCH0FkITSeGJxPEivzjWwlNKe4C_lLIGk&m=UUydIFEV9SQ_lw_LNE4lvS7pQLXEZEWA2F1i7bfAuUY&s=jX1QgcFI8umtt8pEkthXa3uL_TsJINLVTXORUpSDnvA&e= >
_______________________________________________
Id-event mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_id-2Devent&d=DwIGaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=JBm5biRrKugCH0FkITSeGJxPEivzjWwlNKe4C_lLIGk&m=UUydIFEV9SQ_lw_LNE4lvS7pQLXEZEWA2F1i7bfAuUY&s=jX1QgcFI8umtt8pEkthXa3uL_TsJINLVTXORUpSDnvA&e=

_______________________________________________
Id-event mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_id-2Devent&d=DwIGaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=JBm5biRrKugCH0FkITSeGJxPEivzjWwlNKe4C_lLIGk&m=UUydIFEV9SQ_lw_LNE4lvS7pQLXEZEWA2F1i7bfAuUY&s=jX1QgcFI8umtt8pEkthXa3uL_TsJINLVTXORUpSDnvA&e=