Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-par-03.txt

Francis Pouatcha <> Tue, 11 August 2020 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2590B3A0D4F for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.088
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_MIME_MALF=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xal-dOyDEIup for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0737F3A0D58 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k8so173830wma.2 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M5ArFy5n9N2Sal+AFtXBoQMjOYnrWgErfgCzBxH1juU=; b=DJqJHXSJFy0IsP8mPpRNSz/k3m+Va0bckJxWw8qE7pmoZJC3a8ZqZlcuj6l9tXn6Y4 i7O8XtUojXzeyXjM4s8PP1hPEzqnKua1HnrHQPtsAL+oEZH73z4CFVWhY5D1O2kVf/zm WkVHacc6wsjmtjXF5enlnpSeNzkT9WqFXYY64=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M5ArFy5n9N2Sal+AFtXBoQMjOYnrWgErfgCzBxH1juU=; b=O2UZBsWUBdPRgzrRlzLKj4TBWf9NEXAirGpeHrvROIbYipmLxGlnKh6vK75Egplyai yHSIyg71V3pplIrpZZLYohrt7XlTCbH+w6LPDDmaHoKyCBisL8hRcKuzduRN7qErxGhK kIZUjplrPSBXAq5WgjIr1IMI1U5KHPD5Qjd9X/MdIaa0XHo1cb3nR8cfluYzT0Me++oe o1vLeDXSRr+VkHf7WXsA3Z4cuMcEoKk8iFVKrh9z2j1Oa3uHMTvFfLTFFEe+oqRqGoYd tIFu7lgSg6LjSu+Gv1iiTNeOXq05VSsy4DLPTsZWKkbXlBx/MmacOMsCEuCSkDadNqSV hmQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531yMHQkeyVrCqkCoFgLFSZbci5wkTdqJo2eUopMQI8YyFuNIo5r cp+Npi4yJHSxDTxYeAW9J6yE4uACvbwwgUBC2D1jFjZmu0Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxf568tZn5eP3AHl98Z5nUAB9WjZ1oUHoQ0Cjif8YlpBu69aSFYrucD9lACTLCZz3sibeJT2R5p//C+1LnYU04=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c3d4:: with SMTP id t20mr5641378wmj.8.1597184825249; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Francis Pouatcha <>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:26:54 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian Campbell <>
Cc: OAuth WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000026657e05aca192cc"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-par-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:27:09 -0000

Hello Brian,

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 5:55 PM Brian Campbell <bcampbell=> wrote:

> Hi Francis,
> My apologies for the tardy response to this - I was away for some time on
> holiday. But thank you for the review and feedback on the draft. I've tried
> to respond inline below.
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:01 PM Francis Pouatcha <fpo=
>> wrote:
>> Bellow is the only remark I found from reviewing the draft draft:
>> 2.1.  Request:
>> requires the parameters "code_challenge" and "code_challenge_method" but
>> mentions
>> that RFC7636 is not required for confidential clients. I guess those two
>> parameters have to be taken off the mandatory list and pushed to the list
>> below.
> The list of parameters in Section 2.1 is qualified with a "basic parameter
> set will typically include" and is definitely not intended to convey a set
> of required parameters. It's just a list of parameters that make up a
> hypothetical typical request.  Perhaps some text in the section or even the
> formatting needs to be adjusted so as to (hopefully) avoid any confusion
> like this that the list somehow conveys normative requirements?
>> - Using jwsreq, non repudiation is provided as request is signed (jws).
>> This section also mentions that the request can be sent as form url
>> encoded (x-www-form-urlencoded). In this case, there is no way
>> to provide non repudiation unless we mention that request can be signed by
>> client using signature methods declared by the AS (AS metadata).
>  I am not aware of any signature methods or means of an AS declaring
> support for a signature method in metadata that are sufficiently
> standardized to be mentioned in the context of this draft. The "request"
> parameter
> can be sent to the PAR endpoint and should provide the same notation of
> non-repudiation as does jwsreq. I think that's sufficient treatment of
> non-repudiation for the PAR draft.
This is the case when PAR uses "Content-type:

This is fine as the jws form param is signed. This is also equivalent to
jwsreq in matter of providing non repudiation.

Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded



This is not equivalent to jwsreq. As request body is not signed. This
does not provide non repudiation.

Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded



It is worth mentioning this in the draft
Best regards

Francis Pouatcha
Co-Founder and Technical Lead
adorsys GmbH & Co. KG