Re: [OAUTH-WG] HTTP Message Signing and OAuth PoP

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <> Wed, 05 May 2021 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B459D3A1536 for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 05:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
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_MESSAGE=0.001, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ipjJ_NQZx0PT for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 05:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
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 538713A152D for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 05:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v5so2098756ljg.12 for <>; Wed, 05 May 2021 05:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
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=eP0ZiJH8ZKAZpTyDvmzzQVhasIpXyoxLPTyVUboLV4s=; b=lz660K042s17dhzm0Ae8Zdve3LjBYEFHxH3yUA10ZMng2dK8iQMUSFf9tC/oWPc4xw eykrK0zPtsCsEhJJhuuuJ916eHD6QJK8qWqBSHTHMz0+lyKfuhnmoa1hH/Oqofj6nJrJ xu53YkevhZa/E7la+ycfFx5MC3O49wsMKwr/j5qu6B6AIecvgiPMuvR8jM+eqPGRynxB PFXZtfHmiGMkTlY3iIgVg7cNvdcFXXx3lnk657Hufnn7HvDqggZjia94jU1GUuDB3rGt moNNucnpRT3W/yXuxPkmLo2WRgVRjzzSl+uYWxXBrDvPD9zg9qTQkokfU0M2jg9PP7x8 nJEg==
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=eP0ZiJH8ZKAZpTyDvmzzQVhasIpXyoxLPTyVUboLV4s=; b=ubEPpebqGAVkqvaFvlX4AcHTGHcOiWiPybs/fVtXwQL0Jgibxh60JLsPbVF1ANCCEc XRZBRD6yDizT3a7PkUDKTTpwGdl449bWG9fjVsgPkOGxYOy8mt99n49MZ88jrkEKUiuq WV3YJeN/9uDIJF0BCDTI538HLHSj6cc2L497L27PLj8T0O7MN/I+Wk45DevMadQdkEcN D8r+to78NjkV0kSkpteeBwZrPrxjbSQA0X/uMKBcwSS2jZctu7OD2f9LPV0o3x4l6KUQ /2Iae4+GnBMqmW6BDzPWauQxLFS70TXDPHIPn7rFT28T5jcKWebUbd9BKh6TeS9pYhms TrqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531KuG5UAGG2u9yWxbEaYnnWwNfZUzaAIzJ1vdIrNufXYYt80PSM qhqmkoEfOP4VJvfA/RioYmS7b6lyCapz6qW3DGUeDskY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwfAzW1akEFwycFjuAJjdpvj3ktkl4krjf7BqczdHxlNtK1boWxVyc09SCOr5qjI0icZtC4ZJ9i0ZVqkMEwzL0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5d7:: with SMTP id 206mr16697215ljf.278.1620216558635; Wed, 05 May 2021 05:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 08:09:07 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Justin Richer <>
Cc: oauth <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006fcc5705c1941033"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] HTTP Message Signing and OAuth PoP
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: Wed, 05 May 2021 12:09:30 -0000

I have requested a session for this coming Monday, May 10th @ 12:00 pm ET.
An announcement should be coming soon.


On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:54 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <>

> Would this coming Monday, May 10th @ 12:00 pm ET, work for you?
> Regards,
>  Rifaat
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 8:59 AM Justin Richer <> wrote:
>> Hi Rifaat,
>> If you’d like to keep the current mondays-at-noon-ET schedule I can
>> support that. Any Monday this month would work for me, and I’ve reached out
>> to Annabelle so hopefully she can join as well. I don’t know if I’d be able
>> to have the rewrite of the OAuth PoP draft in hand by any of those dates,
>> but the concept is straightforward enough to discuss with or without a
>> draft.
>> Thanks,
>>  — Justin
>> On Apr 29, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Justin,
>> Thanks for the update on this,
>> We would be happy to schedule an interim meeting to discuss this.
>> Do you have a date in mind?
>> Regards,
>>  Rifaat & Hannes
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:34 AM Justin Richer <> wrote:
>>> Many of you will remember an old draft that I was the editor of that
>>> defined OAuth proof of possession methods using HTTP Message Signing. When
>>> writing that draft I invented my own scheme because there wasn’t an
>>> existing HTTP message signature standard that was robust enough for our use
>>> cases. I’m happy to say that the landscape has changed: Annabelle Backman
>>> and I have been working in the HTTP Working Group on HTTP Message
>>> Signatures, a general-purpose HTTP signing draft with a lot of power and a
>>> lot of flexibility. There’s even a relatively straightforward way to map
>>> JOSE-defined signature algorithms into this (even though, to be clear, it
>>> is not JOSE-based). The current draft is here:
>>> This draft has gone through a lot of change in the last few months, but
>>> we, the editors, believe that it’s at a fairly stable place in terms of the
>>> core functioning of the protocol now. It’s not finished yet, but we think
>>> that any changes that come from here will be smaller in scope, more of a
>>> cleanup and clarification than the deep invasive surgery that has happened
>>> up until now.
>>> One of the things about this draft is that, on its own, it is not
>>> sufficient for a security protocol. By design it needs some additional
>>> details on where to get key materials, how to negotiate algorithms, what
>>> fields need to be covered by the signature, etc. I am proposing that we in
>>> the OAuth WG replace the long-since-expired OAuth PoP working group draft
>>> with a new document based on HTTP Message Signatures. I believe that this
>>> document can be relatively short and to the point, given that much of the
>>> mechanics would be defined in the HTTP draft. If this is something we would
>>> like to do in the WG, I am volunteering to write the updated draft.
>>> I also want to be very clear that I still believe that this lives beside
>>> DPoP, and that DPoP should continue even as we pick this back up. In fact,
>>> I think that this work would take some pressure off of DPoP and allow it to
>>> be the streamlined point solution that it was originally intended to be.
>>> If the chairs would like, I would also be happy to discuss this at an
>>> interim meeting.
>>>  — Justin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list