Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status

John Bradley <> Mon, 12 January 2015 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085721A90F4 for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.146
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyzik-jm9mI5 for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83B01A90F1 for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l89so17616618qgf.13 for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=nrn+8tMJUmJ5ypYvgYwgtRPNBgmzPxDHq0cSuGJSF94=; b=Puyx7K9EGQpONXue26OxFeRbUpaUZTI9BL6hfP+IxWXEYDtQAVK6jySrR8w9OZH+nI D0fa8yOjWhwTYTBMGTByOovQfSf8oD6MhWKy6b1XQbmSUUIy9x7BNDhhDM6ZCa6qFlro BgohwbR50YpiBwdPqEknoPr6hqrBSya8Mk0iKfvbb6W0sjHU0iQtlTEzc8zByoODFGwN 1nJWLiLs5TIE+lCS5BPgzek1lUbv6srDanpG4cITqdJDs3nh3DviLPliMRPBB3Z5ICYr TxpQJ1d37xW0mSm/A+vXFf8eA0MplBbXEtISsRcl2Hv7i2Fhp1mdvWxkZBkt9mZdEcFO lBZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn3DEHIoZ4b9bQp/8uC0gDWe/GWGmZdl2l7lXlub+8hVtDPlq57gaInNdTaCNdMPn4ZiQ/r
X-Received: by with SMTP id gr3mr49422502qcb.6.1421070966675; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id g20sm14827193qar.17.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EEE85707-A58C-4287-BDC8-1935ED090C63"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: John Bradley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:56:01 -0300
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Antonio Sanso <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:56:10 -0000

I am willing to try and help you with it.

John B.

> On Jan 12, 2015, at 7:24 AM, Antonio Sanso <> wrote:
> hi *,
> On Jan 9, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Happy New Year!
>> I thought it would be good to quickly summarize where we are with our
>> work in OAuth as we start into 2015.
>> Late last year we issued a few working group last calls.
>> * SPOP
>> The WGLC was started already in the summer and led to a huge amount of
>> feedback. This lead to an improved draft.
>> Nat, John, Naveen: What is the status of the document? What are the open
>> issues?
>> At a minimum there is the issue with the name of the document since it
>> actually does not propose a proof-of-
>> possession solution.
>> * Token Introspection
>> Justin told me that he believes the document is ready for the IESG. I
>> will do my shepherd write-up and shepherd review of the latest version
>> before I hand it over to Kathleen.
>> * Dynamic Client Registration
>> We had a fair amount of discussion about this document on the mailing
>> list in response to my shepherd write-up. A new version of the document
>> has been published and I will have to double-check whether the review
>> comments have been incorporated. Then, the document will be ready for
>> the IESG.
>> * OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession (PoP) Security Architecture	
>> We issued a WGLC and received comments, which had not yet been
>> incorporated. The obvious next step is to publish a new version of the
>> document with the comments addressed. There is also the new mailing list
>> <unbearable> and we have to figure out how this aligns with the work we
>> are doing. Info is here:
>> Derek will be the shepherd for that document.
>> I also wanted to produce a short write-up in response to a news story
>> late last year that blamed OAuth for getting things wrong while the real
>> issue is rather with the way how responsibility are distributed among
>> different players in the eco-system. Here is the link to the discussion
>> and the news story:
>> We also have various documents in IESG processing, namely
>> * JWT
>> * Assertion Framework
>> * SAML Bearer Assertion
>> * JWT Bearer Assertion
>> Kathleen asked us to do a final review of the documents to make sure
>> that various review comments have been addressed appropriately. I am
>> planning to have a look at it today.
>> There is also a webinar upcoming, namely about Kantara UMA. This webinar
>> will be a bit different than earlier presentations you have heard about
>> UMA since it will be focused on Internet of Things. This is part of the
>> webinar series we do in the IETF ACE working group. Here is a link to
>> the announcement:
>> Related to the work in this group is the SASL OAuth draft, which is
>> currently in WGLC in the KITTEN working group and you might want to do a
>> quick review of the document:
>> Here is the WGLC announcement from the KITTEN chairs:
>> There is also the "authentication in OAuth" topic that we wanted to
>> progress. There is a write-up from Justin available, which will inform
>> the debate, but there was also interest to do something more official in
>> the working group. We discussed this at the last IETF meeting.
>> Also at the last IETF meeting we briefly spoke about the token
>> exchange/token delegation work and I got the impression that there is a
>> bit of confusion about the scope of the work and what functionality
>> should be covered in what document.
>> The last two topics seem to be suitable for conference calls. So, we
>> will try to arrange something to progress these topics.
>> Finally, there is the open redirect Antonio raised in
>> The
>> attack might be difficult to understand but it is still worthwhile
>> to make an attempt to explain it to a wider audience (and also the
>> mitigation technique). I believe a draft would be quite suitable for
>> this purpose and I have spoken with Antonio about it already.
> thanks Hannes & Derek for including this here.
> Even if I do not have any experience in IETF processes and related I was wondering if there is any change I can take a stub at and try to prepare a draft about this particular issue.
> What do you guys think? Is there also anybody that would like to collaborate with me on this matter?
> regards
> antonio
>> These are the items that come to mind right now. A lot of work ahead of
>> us, as it seems.
>> What is missing from the list? Feedback?
>> Ciao
>> Hannes & Derek
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list