Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-campbell-oauth-tls-client-auth-00.txt
Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Fri, 11 November 2016 18:13 UTC
Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
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 BE211129C10 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:13:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pingidentity.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uyir9BJMY579 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C48FE129BB2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id q124so328351028itd.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:13:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=gmail; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2pWDnmJVypMNfgpsu6I676kragGCzs0xbOfCh4cf2SQ=; b=GUzjgCRDQP2oChcquTQUEmJqNhqgANPvlrA6Rzu9e89KYoTFFsw5QyiC1Xpe4gkrhy bN9sxXAfBYyxKhc/cJ8z4p254ptOMf5x9noL4peSwJ0ZAdg7R0FlvdEFB6peL2qJnjSg 0kHrV/BeoTvjP2hE76ux/ZNkgaK9d//K1dTnE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2pWDnmJVypMNfgpsu6I676kragGCzs0xbOfCh4cf2SQ=; b=gaje68pFthmJayHLy1BB7J1M47kqpec5Lur2hTNGwPjpjo8XOSzBFPbUWOIAS2WbKl 4ZjMHp+DGbWmcbnuJF9dNzw0DYYIWMUFVhh4tlfy9PpErDWR1qx67esE/VTWl4MQHqXs A3zjK4lCfqqkTpIa9xevoi3Z/dhU/cdiqn0KtAdCDCdKpF3D8d2L5KsZeVx3vI7Vm9et LL12BqgsxjUCfGcBooXtn7HpyKk1SUI8Yq3+6BezOlc+mXgUCM0oDaAq+x94CP564Wjv vzH1w1k+aN2Fhu592qQshGkIESpPwtGcOLU64+O1EeKEId2nq0uJONN4nvn12i0JtWpB 1sBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcQePD6BL+S5G3JWBeZSRxyE7nIVFntw4etYPj2bQBy8jzqfnvZToi3+W6d+0Pe3jWLrpS13fq0E5atG6/S
X-Received: by 10.36.31.82 with SMTP id d79mr9539323itd.79.1478887986111; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:13:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.156.74 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.79.156.74 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:13:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAF2hCbZBaNWygUQo+nkC-KM=1NY4nYKJTwwioHN3G_FvFUKLqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <147613227959.31428.2920748721017165266.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9CDE07EB-E5B4-43B2-B3C1-F12569CAB458@ve7jtb.com> <26838e0e-1aee-04ca-4f7e-f6cff8dcfacf@connect2id.com> <CA+k3eCQaWm+O8VMNGGJG41j=dW2vqa4n6QZgKmVM9=d0HxgnCA@mail.gmail.com> <853d5445-72e4-a1fb-b89c-919864f051f6@connect2id.com> <CAF2hCbYn5_qBTmYkeJVCtJ-0=zWdRcFfu+0cHHb4ygo6as_V6w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCRXss-4_Cxmi41YAcXHh0VKeHogGT=xNkAo1mU6e5WG1w@mail.gmail.com> <CAF2hCbaEi4ntDwbWpTJ4-7_uwunK5WhpsoVLKds87r_s4K7n1w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCRq=P=0wqBx7O3C--fJYTEsuP1WH+1of53_oWb=bxfssw@mail.gmail.com> <41668b29-ba11-3bab-c77d-6b98bcb60280@mit.edu> <CAF2hCbZBaNWygUQo+nkC-KM=1NY4nYKJTwwioHN3G_FvFUKLqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:13:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCSXpjzpEZUF8YUeEb4U90idVbGPLc1gzeL59PdaP+5qBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1145e85213700105410a71cb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/2I2yPJGtdoXW5pbl6elKVDgn6MI>
Cc: Nat Sakimura via Openid-specs-fapi <openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-campbell-oauth-tls-client-auth-00.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 11 Nov 2016 18:13:09 -0000
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" <samuel@erdtman.se> wrote: > Just a quick comment, see inline > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> 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 <samuel@erdtman.se> >> 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 listOAuth@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> >> >> >
- [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draf… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] [Openid-specs-fapi] Fwd: New Versi… Preibisch, Sascha H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Jim Manico
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Jim Manico
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Jim Manico
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Jim Manico
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Phil Hunt (IDM)
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Phil Hunt (IDM)
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Sergey Beryozkin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for … Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft… Jim Manico