Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [websec] unbearable - new mailing list to discuss better than bearer tokens...

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

I think it should be the responsibility of document authors to read the
the state of the art to avoid re-inventing the wheel (particularly since
their co-workers have been heavily involved in the work).

It is not true that we have been waiting for 4 years for this now since
they have changed their solution approach many times and the use of the
raw public key in combination with the PoP solution would have given a
complete solution.

Ciao
Hannes


On 12/06/2014 11:09 AM, John Bradley wrote:
> They have examples of how it could be used in OAuth and Connect.  They didn't look at what we were doing with PoP so the examples don't line up.
> 
> That is why it is important to keep on top of this so that it is the OAuth WG that is defining how this binding mechanism is used in OAuth and JWT.
> 
> The specs themselves are, or should be independent of token type.
> 
> We have been waiting for TLS to produce this for around 4 years now.   It is not really new work, mostly a change of venue to make progress.
> 
> All of this was discussed at the last IETF meeting.  I thought a significant number of people from the OAuth WG were in the room.
> 
> John B.
>> On Dec 6, 2014, at 6:28 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Phil. As currently described it replicates a lot of the
>> work we have done in PoP.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> On 12/06/2014 09:52 AM, John Bradley wrote:
>>> No,  this is the the work formerly known as origin bound certificates & Channel ID.   We need this to bind id_tokens and or access tokens to TLS sessions.
>>>
>>> So it is an alternative TLS binding mechanism.   We still need to describe how to use it with OAuth and JWT.
>>>
>>> It is a building block we can use for PoP.
>>>
>>> John B.
>>>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Phil Hunt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't that duplicate our current work?
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:17, Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>> Subject: [websec] unbearable - new mailing list to discuss better than
>>>>> bearer tokens...
>>>>> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:43:19 +0000
>>>>> From: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Reply-To: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>>>>> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, websec <[e-mail]>,
>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] Group
>>>>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hiya,
>>>>>
>>>>> Following up on the presentation at IETF-91 on this topic, [1]
>>>>> we've created a new list [2] for moving that along. The list
>>>>> description is:
>>>>>
>>>>> "This list is for discussion of proposals for doing better than bearer
>>>>> tokens (e.g. HTTP cookies, OAuth tokens etc.) for web applications.
>>>>> The specific goal is chartering a WG focused on preventing security
>>>>> token export and replay attacks."
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're interested please join in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Vinod and Andrei for agreeing to admin the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll kick off discussion in a few days when folks have had
>>>>> a chance to subscribe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> S.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Please don't reply-all to this, join the new list, wait
>>>>> a few days and then say what you need to say:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/91/slides/slides-91-uta-2.pdf
>>>>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unbearable
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> websec mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>
>