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

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

Regards,
 Rifaat

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:54 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 <jricher@mit.edu> 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 <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
>> 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 <jricher@mit.edu> 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:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-04.html
>>>
>>> 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
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>
>>