Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-campbell-oauth-tls-client-auth-00.txt

[Samuel Erdtman <[e-mail]>]

You are right one could absolutely use the jwks or jwks_uri attribute, but
from my point of view that would be a workaround.
I would prefer that x5u, x5c and/or x5t was directly available in the
client registration request not via jwks. This would be a cleaner solution.

Best Regards
Samuel

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 at 19:13, Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Wouldn't the existing jwks/jwks_uri client metadata parameters suffice?
> Perhaps some guidance in this document about that is warranted. But I don't
> believe anything new is needed for that case.
>
> On Nov 11, 2016 9:41 AM, "Samuel Erdtman" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Just a quick comment, see inline
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Justin Richer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I agree that the client_id is unlikely to be found inside the certificate
> itself. The client_id is issued by the authorization server for the client
> to use at that single AS. The certificate is issued by the CA for the
> client to use on any connection. The AS and CA are not likely to be the
> same system in most deployments. The client will use the same cert across
> multiple connections, possibly multiple AS's, but the same isn't true of
> the client_id.
>
> Additionally, I think we want to allow for a binding of a self-signed
> certificate using dynamic registration, much the way that we already allow
> binding of a client-generated JWK today.
>
> Should this specification then extend the dynamic registration
> specification (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7591) with the certificate
> parameter to actually do the registration or is that another document?
>
>
> I do think that more examples and guidance are warranted, though, to help
> AS developers.
>
>  -- Justin
>
> On 11/2/2016 5:03 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Samuel Erdtman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> I agree it is written so that the connection to the certificate is
> implicitly required but I think it would be better if it was explicit
> written since the lack of a connection would result in a potential security
> hole.
>
>
> That's fair. I agree it can be made more explicit and that it be good to
> do so.
>
>
>
> When it comes to the client_id I think subject common name or maybe
> subject serial numbers will be the common location, and I think an example
> would be valuable.
>
>
>
> In my experience and the way we built support for mutual TLS OAuth client
> auth the client_id value does not appear in the certificate anywhere. I'm
> not saying it can't happen but don't think it's particularly common.
>
> I can look at adding some examples, if there's some consensus that they'd
> be useful and this document moves forward.
>
>
>
>
> I´m not saying it is a bad Idea just that I would prefer if it was not a
> MUST.
> With very limited addition of code it is just as easy to get the
> certificate attribute for client id as it is to get it from the HTTP
> request data (at least in java). I also think that with the requirement to
> match the incoming certificate in some way one has to read out the
> certificate that was used to establish the connection to do some kind of
> matching.
>
>
> Getting data out of the certificate isn't a concern. I just believe that
> the constancy of having the client id parameter is worth the potential
> small amount duplicate data in some cases. It's just a -00 draft though and
> if the WG wants to proceed with this document, we seek further input and
> work towards some consensus.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
>