[OAUTH-WG] dpop terminogly

Nikos Fotiou <fotiou@aueb.gr> Sun, 04 April 2021 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <fotiou@aueb.gr>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED263A1AF1 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 14:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=aueb.gr
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NELIQIRwfvgI for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 14:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blade-b3-vm-relay.servers.aueb.gr (blade-b3-vm-relay.servers.aueb.gr []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704733A1AE2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Apr 2021 14:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blade-a1-vm-smtp.servers.aueb.gr (blade-a1-vm-smtp.servers.aueb.gr []) by blade-b3-vm-relay.servers.aueb.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12603977 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 00:15:45 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=aueb.gr; s=201901; t=1617570945; bh=pYyavVvo+qCyatyWr+5zcdJNLmQIfv4vf3J8EtKKG/o=; h=From:Subject:Date:To:From; b=wHfbYDgt0YFf+qk/xudEFzUNhLFNWCUCMPH3yNYDRzdwy9QQkB+SdCF5G7Sb3rbxD aSwIWd2YjGPpxxSBnFW14yIvLwtmqcu5VNRRtj4d/dNt+Wi3NHFm81kmsV9v5fnGZM 3HuHxN1+bjyjex6XS0+Hzmo71hJCS/X4UxDR3bDIh8HdJjrR0DYZIUPPAyBVWkk7YT 5Dq1ydp3tuAg0yUtNjsBLcQSvVKIYkgEnHHHMkxZJnw1V2PU9bHHWky4pGgsUqh6Ey UerC0NaJJUcP/UPXMX/qfwza5+neO6DiAsO03j+c423xW3wTVDlt6G8K86wQH8pF/J YVqTqAEKnl1Wg==
Received: from [] (athedsl-238333.home.otenet.gr []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fotiou) by blade-a1-vm-smtp.servers.aueb.gr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE8B3327 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 00:15:44 +0300 (EEST)
From: Nikos Fotiou <fotiou@aueb.gr>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D7B9D607-C7E3-473C-8840-E1DA8B1D5A41"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Message-Id: <745359AE-98D7-4AC0-B088-E522E8CF3FFC@aueb.gr>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:15:43 +0300
To: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/6pm5iR5D-G1OawPpAl-K2x9mcxo>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] dpop terminogly
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 04 Apr 2021 21:15:59 -0000

Hi I am wondering if the following terminology is more appropriate for the DPoP draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fett-oauth-dpop-04):
- Since a DPoP proof is a JWT encoded in a JWS may be it is better to say "DPoP proof payload" instead of "DPoP proof body" (end of page 4).
- For the same reason use "JOSE header" instead of "JSON header" (beginning of page 5)
- Moreover, here and there it is stated "the header of the JWT". AFAIU JWTs do not have headers themselves but the header is part of the JWS/JWE structure in which the JWT is encoded. So may be it is more appropriate to say "the JOSE header" instead of "the header of the JWT". 


Nikos Fotiou - http://pages.cs.aueb.gr/~fotiou
Researcher - Mobile Multimedia Laboratory
Athens University of Economics and Business