Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status
John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Mon, 12 January 2015 13:56 UTC
Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085721A90F4 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.146
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyzik-jm9mI5 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com (mail-qg0-f54.google.com [209.85.192.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83B01A90F1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l89so17616618qgf.13 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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 10.229.212.67 with SMTP id gr3mr49422502qcb.6.1421070966675; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 05:56:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.8.100] ([186.65.243.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g20sm14827193qar.17.2015.01.12.05.56.04 (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 <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <459FF4A3-1BBF-43C7-B6BB-C7D831E2FDFD@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:56:01 -0300
Message-Id: <BA10EFDD-C584-4EE5-905D-DAC7580B3F24@ve7jtb.com>
References: <54AFAADC.2080106@gmx.net> <459FF4A3-1BBF-43C7-B6BB-C7D831E2FDFD@adobe.com>
To: Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/9ot55PWUdwUEkkI2q9X2QwQaJ4E>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: 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 <asanso@adobe.com> wrote: > > hi *, > On Jan 9, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> 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 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-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 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-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 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-21 >> >> 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 >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-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: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13997.html >> >> 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: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13929.html >> >> 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: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14015.html >> >> 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: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth-18 >> >> Here is the WGLC announcement from the KITTEN chairs: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14020.html >> >> 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 >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13367.html. 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@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status Antonio Sanso
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status John Bradley