Re: [OAUTH-WG] Reminder - Interim Meeting to discuss DPoP

Dick Hardt <> Tue, 01 December 2020 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D733A1135 for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:43:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rVlS-f_ZgBbc for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:43:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E18B3A0D4B for <>; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:43:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i17so5378404ljd.3 for <>; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 12:43:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MelaZ3XWZKZuhG7JQUbU0gCIbjKuF+QYuyu+BJJrXQc=; b=Edf6NQBdffssw2tIHw92HjBkPSZV1JJ+5/LW4tZeppi8dFbIQ0vd6PYEszN/gB6Axn fBuv4P2IkX4vTmMMAJzfJbgvgZ4auL3ISc97DBK+aMZ136A6NKZ/vQ4EY6scRvSvo41q 8wH/DyVKA5m7+q945Hs2frj5Z82QdqqLl4Juv4hNuqQz9zy/QuiiE07mPou7PyRns00q ElriWdydv91qZnO12zzxxXY4SxX0t1rFjFFKlRAQjOneeEcaK7z9poIY+UsyxlgDXNeu 182zLoH2U8iTyfDKScjK5SZMegLBQb9XSLOolpjv3d/cYuUybMzeF/EiXIc7weZMXNAA GZMA==
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=MelaZ3XWZKZuhG7JQUbU0gCIbjKuF+QYuyu+BJJrXQc=; b=eYlXHKf2avKOXtnv+pKYFWKRccOOB2SpgQ+kiUEdtDt+vEXRtdVnKSJa8DOHynam80 EcVMhnqK4wjCInEj/Kq5fwVRuL5MMXlJ6VIXKiCyzRelIlyFGlKkKBdNvvPloe9+1WwT Bpjxm6azhKiGCUeUTSxsdXBjfDirlrgoDJ1MauMLjgAEXnj6dFpOQaWhQ45Ru75lRcHu EA2se0T9Zwblf6Zr6vFDQKWBY3QIfQ2fdW+r4AATd6E+aol/X5ne8KMk1hjw8AFoY9m9 p7p0yvomj77e3HbY6aykX0z6zFbmMQ7ZJrwLbMp2Sjvc3MTDDv8VlgH1f3d7XxZZOHO8 UWhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533fep3To+y81TNtFD77HpoX/TD7KpXdn8TKoF7+8NXV2C++XlXR hlbuY3dPCZwDnHA2ynKl0QvD8es/E2vGaZtFyIo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxYdIpuj4qfLJ0RbJp+Yo13hfeentQwsDpbG/N5cQTlf1heRYyic3mVGtdBiM1CFpKiIUm18QLIfTgY+pAzwRQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b701:: with SMTP id j1mr2174694ljo.242.1606855391214; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 12:43:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dick Hardt <>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 12:42:35 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Daniel Fett <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc81d605b56d2ce2"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Reminder - Interim Meeting to discuss DPoP
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, 01 Dec 2020 20:43:16 -0000

I have 2 suggestions for the draft that I beleive address the issues Denis
is bringing up:

1) call out that a DPoP proof can only be used once, and a new DPoP proof
is needed for every API call. Apologies if that is in the text -- but I
could not find it doing a skim over the document.

2) Provide additional guidance on what "a relatively brief period" is
including what factors an implementation should consider when determining
the length of time. I'm assuming it is a small number of seconds to
accommodate for the delay between the client creating the DPoP proof and
the server receiving it.


On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:24 AM Daniel Fett <> wrote:

> So what you are proposing is that the time window in which an RS accepts
> the DPoP proof is defined by the expiration time of the access token?
> DPoP proofs are intended to be generally be short-lived and fresh for each
> request in order to provide some level of replay protection. There is no
> point in making the time window as long as the (typically longer) time
> window in which an AT would be accepted. A DPoP proof that is valid for 12
> hours would not provide much replay protection.
> The time window is left unspecified because it is only meant to account
> for clock differences and network latency. Its precise value can depend on
> deployment considerations. It is not intended to give the client an option
> to re-use proofs, which is prevented together with the jti.
> Also this would introduce new, unwanted and potentially surprising
> dependencies between token lifetimes and the DPoP usage.
> And finally, as discussed before, not all access tokens are JWTs and we
> are not going to mandate JWT access tokens in this spec.
> -Daniel
> Am 01.12.20 um 09:54 schrieb Denis:
> Hi  Brian,
> Hi Denis,
> The choice to use "iat" vs. "exp" was made in the summer of last year. You
> can see some of the discussion from then in
> I believe it pretty well has consensus at this point and thus unlikely to
> be changed.
> I fear that you misread my email or read it too fast. My point had nothing
> to do whether using *either *of "iat" *o**r* "exp" in the DPoP proof JWT
> sent by the client.
> The first sentence of my email was: "One comment on slide 5 about the *time
> window*". So the topic was all about how the RS SHALL handle the "jti"
> claim included
> in the DPoP proof JWT when using a time window.
> While I do believe there are reasonable arguments that can be made on both
> sides of using either of "iat" or "exp", it's difficult (and honestly time
> consuming and very frustrating) to try and have such discussions or even
> respond in a coherent way when fundamental aspects of the draft are
> misrepresented or misunderstood. For example, the DPoP proof JWT is created
> by the client not the AS so the advantages you put forward are
> nonsensical in the context of the actual workings of the draft.
> Section 8.1 addresses the topic of the *time window*, but this topic
> should not *only *be addressed in the "Security Considerations" section
> but in the main body of the document, since some checks MUST be done by
> the RS. "Security Considerations"are intended to provide
> explanations but are not intended to be normative.
> Section 8.1 states:
>    " If an adversary is able to get hold of a DPoP proof JWT, the
> adversary could replay that token at the same endpoint (the HTTP
>    endpoint and method are enforced via the respective claims in the
> JWTs).  To prevent this, servers MUST only accept DPoP proofs
>    for a limited time window after their "iat" time, preferably only for a
> relatively brief period.
>    Servers SHOULD store, in the context of the request URI, the "jti"
> value of each DPoP proof for the time window in which the respective
>    DPoP proof JWT would be accepted and decline HTTP requests to the same
> URI for which the "jti" value has been seen before.  In order
>    to guard against memory exhaustion attacks a server SHOULD reject DPoP
> proof JWTs with unnecessarily large "jti" values or store only
>    a hash thereof.
>    (...) ".
> The previous text makes the assumption that RSs MUST only accept DPoP
> proofs for a relatively brief period after their "iat" time included
> in the DPoP proof JWT. This assumption is rather restrictive. A client
> might get an access token and associate it with DPoP proof JWT that
> could be used during, e.g., 12 hours. A DPoP proof JWT/ access token JWT
> pair could thus be used by a client during, e.g., one day for
> several sessions with a RS.
> The *time window* is currently left at the discretion of each RS and is
> supposed to be short (without stating explicitly what "short" may mean)..
> It would be possible to mandate in the JWT the inclusion of the exp
> (Expiration Time) Claim. (I am *not* advocating the inclusion of the
> "exp"
> claim in the DPoP proof JWT).
> In this way, for a RS, the *time window *would be defined using the "iat"
> claim defined in the DPoP proof JWT and the "exp" claim defined in
> the JWT.
> Such a description should not be done in section 8, but in a section
> earlier in the main body of the document.
> This would have the following advantages:
>    - The RS would be able to better manage the "jti" claim values,
>    because it would be able to discard "jti" claim values as soon as they are
>    outside the time window as defined above.
>    - The client would know whether a DPoP proof JWT/ access token JWT
>    pair is still usable, in particular using the "expires_in" status code
>    returned in case of a successful response from the AS and is thus
>    unlikely to get a rejection of both of them because of an unknown time
>    window used by a RS.
> Denis
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 8:45 AM Denis <> wrote:
>> One comment on slide 5 about the *time window*.
>> At the bottom, on the left, it is written: "Only valid for a limited *time
>> window* relative to creation time".
>> While the creation time is defined by "iat", the *time window* is
>> currently left at the discretion of each RS.
>> It would be preferable to mandate the inclusion in the JWT of the exp
>> (Expiration Time) Claim.
>> In this way, the *time window *would be defined by the AS using both the
>> "iat" and the "exp" claims.
>> This would have the following advantages:
>>    - The client will know whether a token is still usable and is
>>    unlikely to get a rejection of the token
>>    because of an unknown time window defined by a RS.
>>    - The RS is able to manage better the "jti" claim values, because it
>>    will be able to discard "jti" claim values
>>    as soon as they are outside the time window defined by the AS in a
>>    JWT.
>> Denis
>> All,
>> This is a reminder that we have an Interim meeting this Monday, Nov 30th
>> @ 12:00pm ET, to discuss the latest with the *DPoP *document:
>> You can find the details of the meeting and the slides here:
>> Regards,
>>  Rifaat & Hannes
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing listOAuth@ietf.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing listOAuth@ietf.org
> --
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list