Re: [OAUTH-WG] We appear to still be litigating OAuth, oops

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sat, 27 February 2021 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DEC3A0C98; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:16:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 bFMQ5JuLzYmZ; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-f169.google.com (mail-yb1-f169.google.com [209.85.219.169]) (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 D8EA83A0C94; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:16:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-f169.google.com with SMTP id x19so12225999ybe.0; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:16:03 -0800 (PST)
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=sQt9GlbRaLotfNR9rfajZbw1fcGoA1siDoeSEzo9r4s=; b=c/2G5goGmL/3PqNHSSejUZ6yJH25Mminx4y3N1cs18XRfkLeBSkk3Q7/oWX4O5rcbn JyBVj6sEMzGmo5r6NFuy7Zi3u2d+nXLDww8qbBLZ+wekNUHy9OEgT1Cyb553l9u2cmzP AmbWRstePyJaGmoXoITGkz6f5penixj/5qvM4Po9H2stTLIIiLa0giP+sQqzGSo9mF1G NoIgxDA+I6wbI9RDhtJwaVW9t8+8iVnLhAK+jhNXhq3DRMliIFcvriEjCR5I11ryqIRL KnwTJJyVg1DEWQ0ZvOgQfNX/IU2tgDoDYWSuFw9c0SRMCyThPPGM0VO/47MKdEYIns4K ZabQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312REe1hpTEVd/FNTPUgnhJiwSjBok+k+lqUkbQgew6vzI7UpXI ZXSNY2AJ9qMcomO+HYjZhwAXl12xbUUXRrfl8uQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzAP1wPITiA6devBSWAje/ASX9gVgUKKRb7MUQJr1xnjQtp9gub8FjQ2UfdmhHweOYr/DVflQMdR4XPgqd2sTI=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:50d8:: with SMTP id e207mr11177063ybb.56.1614442562749; Sat, 27 Feb 2021 08:16:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMm+LwgbK3HYDjSHnTN3f6hWSQCQrEjHLNn6z0JpfY7hdxaQpg@mail.gmail.com> <A8128346-B557-472F-B94F-8F624F955FCE@manicode.com> <eb2eaaa7-7f7e-4170-ab87-1cc1fdd3359b@www.fastmail.com> <CAJot-L0PS_3LxEkC-jd1aqXDdYF+z8BajSs4Rhx3LgRPn6wkdQ@mail.gmail.com> <DAB127D7-809F-4EC2-A043-9B15E2DB8E07@tzi.org> <CAJot-L1e8GegjXjADRQ87tGqnSREoO4bEKLX+kPkZFsQpevGQA@mail.gmail.com> <66be0ffe-a638-45a0-ba05-1585ea02e6bf@www.fastmail.com> <CAJot-L2KO2dOzZQJJeB1kbk6_KTQwUYUsoJOoRt=9maynS1jZg@mail.gmail.com> <121f52be-4747-45f3-ad75-79fa2f693d75@beta.fastmail.com> <E84B4446-5F74-402B-8071-A1164EF0B02C@mit.edu> <6b5d0e34-340f-4f93-83ef-817d4624ec7d@dogfood.fastmail.com> <CAPLh0AMfncjJ0iaZ5gmzrh1D0Z7WCOtG-+6GZkmzfQuAttsBtw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPLh0AMEnbak8=6boESQCgTd=Au4V9O=wCqGCz5qEU-d3y0g5g@mail.gmail.com> <6E2CD5EE-55D9-403A-835D-032ECA39CBFB@mit.edu> <CAHBU6iu1e-8XOxH3DRxM36v_D-=J5Scw=yuZRD9G0VL+bY86Fg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iu1e-8XOxH3DRxM36v_D-=J5Scw=yuZRD9G0VL+bY86Fg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:15:51 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwjr-8qDofh3pd4mKyYP9HKFMeqPozSq8UUq=1WKFfY=Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] We appear to still be litigating OAuth, oops
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>, =?UTF-8?Q?Se=C3=A1n_Kelleher?= <sean@trustap.com>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007688e305bc53b379"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hFtlQsUnYRo1OcNVh1zUL2XUwIU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 16:16:06 -0000

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:32 AM Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:10 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Right, it’s possible to patch OAuth to do this, but the whole
>> “registration equals trust” mindset is baked into OAuth at a really core
>> level. That’s one of the main reasons there’s been hesitance at deploying
>> dynamic registration. It’s an extension that changes your trust model’s
>> assumptions, and does so in a way that is challenging for a lot of large
>> scale providers.
>>
>
> Justin is correct but being extremely diplomatic. “There’s been
> hesitance”, as he puts it, translates in practice to some lawyer or VP
> saying “You want to accept auth assertions for business transactions from
> unknown parties?  I have no interest in jail time, so forget it.”
>

Getting back to the general case rather than litigating one particular
protocol. I have on many occasions found that the response to raising an
issue in the IETF is to be told that the solution is I should go and
'educate them' to understand that their concern doesn't matter.