Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft-hunt-oauth-pop-architecture-00.txt

Some people and specs associate holder of key with asymmetric keys.  Proof of possession is thought to be a broader category including symmetric and key agreement eg http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2875.

NIST defines the term PoP Protocol http://fismapedia.org/index.php?title=Term:Proof_of_Possession_Protocol

In SAML the saml:SubjectConfirmation method  is called urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:holder-of-key 

In WS* the term proof of possession is more common.

So I think for this document as an overview "Proof of Possession (PoP) Architecture" is fine.

John B.

On Apr 3, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com> wrote:

> What was wrong with HOK?
> 
> Aside: Why was “the” so important in HOTK?
> 
> Phil
> 
> @independentid
> www.independentid.com
> phil.hunt@oracle.com
> 
> On Apr 3, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Anil Saldhana <Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Prateek,
>>   why not just use "proof"? 
>> 
>> draft-hunt-oauth-proof-architecture-00.txt
>> 
>> Is that allowed by IETF?
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Anil
>> 
>> On 04/03/2014 11:30 AM, Prateek Mishra wrote:
>>> "key confirmed" or "key confirmation" is another term that is widely used for these use-cases
>>>> I really *like* the name "proof of possession", but I think the acronym PoP is going to be confused with POP.  HOTK has the advantage of not being a homonym for aything else.  What about "Possession Proof"?
>>>>  
>>>> -bill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> William J. Mills
>>>> "Paranoid" MUX Yahoo!
>>>> 
>>>> On Thursday, April 3, 2014 1:38 AM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-hunt-oauth-pop-architecture-00.txt
>>>> has been successfully submitted by Hannes Tschofenig and posted to the
>>>> IETF repository.
>>>> 
>>>> Name:        draft-hunt-oauth-pop-architecture
>>>> Revision:    00
>>>> Title:        OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession (PoP) Security Architecture
>>>> Document date:    2014-04-03
>>>> Group:        Individual Submission
>>>> Pages:        21
>>>> URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hunt-oauth-pop-architecture-00.txt
>>>> Status:        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-oauth-pop-architecture/
>>>> Htmlized:      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hunt-oauth-pop-architecture-00
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>   The OAuth 2.0 bearer token specification, as defined in RFC 6750,
>>>>   allows any party in possession of a bearer token (a "bearer") to get
>>>>   access to the associated resources (without demonstrating possession
>>>>   of a cryptographic key).  To prevent misuse, bearer tokens must to be
>>>>   protected from disclosure in transit and at rest.
>>>> 
>>>>   Some scenarios demand additional security protection whereby a client
>>>>   needs to demonstrate possession of cryptographic keying material when
>>>>   accessing a protected resource.  This document motivates the
>>>>   development of the OAuth 2.0 proof-of-possession security mechanism.
>>>> 
>>>>                                                                                   
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>> 
>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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