IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] signatures, v2

Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com> Fri, 23 July 2010 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <balfanz@google.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50BBF3A676A for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.809
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.809 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xer-Uu43oOxR for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7503A69EF for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o6NHwXuB014563 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:58:33 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1279907914; bh=et2e0ezYaWukIx3N9CSVpq+2zkQ=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=jR58dLlryVrUDwWe6spdK2rx5ULexgWKYIhgRdKShczgjwthEMl4lsgqEkMBbEgz4 v46a+hjSdcS/W4H1gSBHg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=S4SyaNqMa3eTURWms3/Kk+BmPK0eM/OTuC+BQXFEqTtZLAWhxi5PI/5z+a22h0HbT mbQacbodmLwQq3Lfcc3sw==
Received: from yxs7 (yxs7.prod.google.com [10.190.5.135]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o6NHvuc1002112 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:58:32 -0700
Received: by yxs7 with SMTP id 7so4035039yxs.0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.99.12 with SMTP id w12mr4281045anb.157.1279907912023; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.130.9 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiks+y2gUFB1L1qnDnOxmAmiAVmHukSXwXQZu3AU@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim7pvrLnQtz4WnDvYVRv0jbWgk3j8uMJj07CsM1@mail.gmail.com> <4C431BA3.2000907@lodderstedt.net> <AANLkTilBFabSRsxshSuBbzbYqwv7MzPbMq-fUBShjX9L@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTiks+y2gUFB1L1qnDnOxmAmiAVmHukSXwXQZu3AU@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:58:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=EvpJrZQz9F4N0NHCFUaroPQi0H=gFHYp3OsYY@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com>
To: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e645ada07101c7048c11c8ab"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] signatures, v2
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:58:18 -0000

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dirk,
>
> Inline:
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt
> > <torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Dirk,
> >>
> >> I have some questions concerning your proposal:
> >>
> >> - As far as I understand, the difference to "magic signatures" lays in
> the
> >> usage of a JSON token carrying issuer, not_before, not_after and
> audience.
> >> While such properties are important for security tokens (assertions), I
> >> cannot see an advantage of using this format for signatures of HTTP
> >> requests. Would you please explain?
> >
> > You mean advantage over magic signatures? It's really a similar idea -
> it's
> > just that magic signatures as is don't quite fit the bill. For example,
> they
> > have newlines in
> > them:
> http://salmon-protocol.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/draft-panzer-magicsig-00.html#anchor5
>
> Well, they MAY, but they do not have to. Would not profiling Magic
> Signatures so that it does not contain newlines do?
>

I'll look into it. There are some other differences, like HMAC signatures in
addition to RSA, X.509 encodings of certs, but perhaps those differences can
be smoothed over in favor for a common spec. I'll talk to John Panzer.

Dirk.


>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> http://twitter.com/_nat_en
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email