Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application - Was: Re: Last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-10
Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> Tue, 04 June 2013 18:42 UTC
Return-Path: <jricher@mitre.org>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722C421F869F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.143
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.455, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NKgLg4WXul8F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E2521F9952 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DF4CC1F1187; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (imccas03.mitre.org [129.83.29.80]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEF41F1176; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.146.15.13] (129.83.31.56) by IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (129.83.29.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.342.3; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:35:11 -0400
Message-ID: <51AE3331.5080209@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:34:25 -0400
From: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: George Fletcher <gffletch@aol.com>
References: <85AA2C66-108B-4276-92EE-2D7566E54990@oracle.com> <6AF52CCD-4D6B-4696-8465-3345FFFDBE9C@mitre.org> <A1F47E63-DFE6-41A2-9F91-2DB44091D94C@oracle.com> <8EFC7565-0E81-4688-9AEB-459E7503F609@mitre.org> <6D11C230-31F6-4206-8F29-B1F2BFB5C17E@oracle.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436773435C@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <B0C50AAD-97F0-4E55-A30D-C011B012A3DB@oracle.com> <519A42B4.2020803@mitre.org> <2B22BE68-6903-4C5B-8B0F-A10EB5BA74FE@oracle.com> <519B7AA5.3070908@mitre.org> <D4A8CBBB-2929-4B8D-BE05-086F895F0930@oracle.com> <519B9623.8030403@mitre.org> <C7C4CA9B-1C34-452A-B3C3-0BBE9EF1ECB7@oracle.com> <sjmr4gi4o3a.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org> <13631B8F-D3FA-47E6-9176-812840BA507F@oracle.com> <c842d056-82f1-4d23-b130-4bd7f6ea0057@email.android.com> <1AB6F2B5-BBDE-476C-B30E-33510EAA024C@oracle.com> <51AE19BA.1090806@mitre.org> <51AE2A50.4030800@aol.com> <51AE2D85.4040101@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <51AE2D85.4040101@aol.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050009040906090103070606"
X-Originating-IP: [129.83.31.56]
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application - Was: Re: Last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-10
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:42:46 -0000
No problem, Georgia. :) On 06/04/2013 02:10 PM, George Fletcher wrote: > Argh! Typos (due to iPhone? no bad brain <-> hand connections). Sorry > Justin! > > On 6/4/13 1:56 PM, George Fletcher wrote: >> +1 for leaving dyn reg as is and working on a profile that enables >> this more domain specific scenario. I agree with Phil and Justine >> that it's important... I just don't think it should be put in the >> core dyn reg spec. >> >> Thanks, >> George >> >> On 6/4/13 12:45 PM, Justin Richer wrote: >>> I agree with the goal of standardizing on identifying software >>> instances, but I think it's out of scope to do so inside of dynamic >>> registration when most dynamic registration use cases don't need it >>> and won't use it. I think that you've got to define discovery, >>> assertion contents, and a few other things in order to make it work >>> and interoperable across different services. Do we really want to >>> define assertion formats and server/client discovery and processing >>> rules inside of dynamic registration? I really don't think that's >>> beneficial, either to dynamic registration itself or to the problem >>> that the software instance tracking is trying to solve. >>> >>> If this gets proposed as a separate document, I will support it and >>> I will help work on it. Heck, I'll even help edit the thing (or >>> things) if people want. But I strongly believe that it's a separate >>> concern from dynamic client registration, and I think it needs to >>> have its own proper discussion apart from that. >>> >>> -- Justin >>> >>> On 06/04/2013 02:28 AM, Phil Hunt wrote: >>>> Yes. However the contents and format are out of scope. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> On 2013-06-03, at 22:32, Torsten Lodderstedt >>>> <torsten@lodderstedt.net <mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Phil, >>>>> >>>>> isn't the initial registration token such a credential, which >>>>> allows to co-relate different instances of the same software? >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> Torsten. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com <mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com>> >>>>> schrieb: >>>>> >>>>> Finally i believe the bb+ doesn't have the issue because they are solving with an initial authn credential that contains the same info. >>>>> >>>>> My feeling is that this functionality needs to be standardized one way or another. >>>>> >>>>> Phil >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-03, at 19:16, Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com <mailto:derek@ihtfp.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Phil, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com >>>>> <mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com>> writes: >>>>> >>>>> Not quite. I will call you. I am saying we are >>>>> transitioning from the old public client model. The >>>>> new model proposes quasi-confidential characteristics >>>>> but in some respects is missing key information from >>>>> the public m! odel. Namely that a group of clients are >>>>> related and there have common behaviour and security >>>>> characteristics. We need to add to the self-asserted >>>>> model an assertion equiv to the old common client_id. >>>>> That is all. I am NOT looking for a proof of >>>>> application identity here. That is too far. But >>>>> certainly what we define here can open that door. Phil >>>>> >>>>> I think I understand what you're saying here. In the "old >>>>> way", a public client had a constant client_id amongst all >>>>> instances of that public client, whereas in the "new way", >>>>> a public client will have different client_ids amongst all >>>>> instances of that client. You feel this is a loss, whereas >>>>> it seems most people seem to feel this change is okay. >>>>> Since you are effectively the lone dissenter on this one >>>>> topic, let me ask you a question: What is a technical >>>>> reason that you need to have a constant, assertion that >>>>> would bind to! gether (in a non-authenticated way) >>>>> multiple instances of a client? I believe that Justin has >>>>> provides some attacks against this; so I'm trying to >>>>> understand, (with my chair hat on), why you need this >>>>> functionality? With my security-mafia hat on, I feel like >>>>> the old way was bad, and I much prefer the newer way where >>>>> each instance of a client gets its own ID and a >>>>> locally-stored secret. -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 >>>>> derek@ihtfp.com <mailto:derek@ihtfp.com> www.ihtfp.com >>>>> <http://www.ihtfp.com> Computer and Internet Security >>>>> Consultant >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> OAuth mailing list >>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-d… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Richer, Justin P.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Richer, Justin P.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Richer, Justin P.
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Phil Hunt
- [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application - W… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Phil Hunt
- [OAUTH-WG] Charter- was Re: Client Instances of A… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Charter- was Re: Client Instances … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Charter- was Re: Client Instances … Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Charter- was Re: Client Instances … Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Charter- was Re: Client Instances … Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Charter- was Re: Client Instances … John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Charter- was Re: Client Instances … Eve Maler
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Derek Atkins
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Derek Atkins
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last call review of draft-ietf-oau… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… George Fletcher
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Anganes, Amanda L
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application… John Bradley