Return-Path: 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 B187121F869E for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:21:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.821 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.223, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 s+EyfHJJGjPB for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:21:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0236121F8678 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail56-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.252) by CH1EHSOBE018.bigfish.com (10.43.70.68) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:20:46 +0000 Received: from mail56-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail56-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2410436049D; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:19:47 +0000 (UTC) X-SpamScore: -23 X-BigFish: VS-23(zz9371Kc85fhzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI Received-SPF: pass (mail56-ch1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ; Received: from mail56-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail56-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1322097584974757_926; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:19:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS030.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.245]) by mail56-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF70B440042; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:19:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by CH1EHSMHS030.bigfish.com (10.43.70.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:20:44 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.220]) by TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.174]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.005; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:21:25 -0800 From: Mike Jones To: John Bradley , oauth WG Thread-Topic: Message ID for draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer Thread-Index: AQHMqkSsSZNH/xSrpk6bjRX2IcEdIJW7OZ9g Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:21:23 +0000 Message-ID: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435F74F94C@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.36] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435F74F94CTK5EX14MBXC283r_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Message ID for draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OAUTH WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:21:29 -0000 --_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435F74F94CTK5EX14MBXC283r_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks John. This makes sense to me. Feedback from others? -- Mike From: John Bradley [mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 5:02 PM To: oauth WG Cc: Mike Jones Subject: Message ID for draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer The draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer profile is lacking a message ID that exists in the SAML v= ersion. This is important for the receiver to detect replay attacks. For Connect I made up a claim to use: tid The tid (token id) claim, A nonce or unique identifier for the asserti= on. The Assertion ID may be used by implementations requiring message de- d= uplication for one-time use assertions. I was tempted to use mid (Message ID) however it is the id of the token not= the message. If you add something I will change the claim to be consistent. I think it needs to be in your spec. Regards John B. --_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435F74F94CTK5EX14MBXC283r_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks John.  This m= akes sense to me.

 <= /p>

Feedback from others?

 <= /p>

    &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;     -- Mike

 <= /p>

From: John Bra= dley [mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 5:02 PM
To: oauth WG
Cc: Mike Jones
Subject: Message ID for draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer

 

The d= raft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer profile is lacking a message ID that exists in the SAML version.

 

This i= s important for the receiver to detect replay attacks.

 

For Co= nnect I made up a claim to use:

 

tid &n= bsp;The tid (token id) claim, A nonce or unique identifier for the assertio= n. The Assertion ID may be used by implementations requiring message de- duplication for one-time use assertions.

 

I was = tempted to use mid (Message ID) however it is the id of the token not the m= essage.

 

If you= add something I will change the claim to be consistent.=

 

I thin= k it needs to be in your spec.

 

Regard= s

John B= .

--_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435F74F94CTK5EX14MBXC283r_--