IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] WGLC review of OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice by Mike Jones

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Tue, 26 November 2019 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7ABB1209FC for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:34:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=lodderstedt.net
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 jdymDKIX8SK9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:34:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEF50120870 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id i12so21752180wrn.11 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:34:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lodderstedt.net; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=40fGIGW55vM3Zzp5fjR3cjlnWVgI0nQgWlqCdclLpGk=; b=bvBBiZO0c24ENwU8mHUOGG+PmbnqtLPWNGObNJ85UHSEO1bL0bguChB8JZwEOf1UHO G6euLQzgbNucXBIEGF45Vhd15ZjtHoSbpgfXfNhwwF60leDz2Gjzxs/GqHLehPxHAuUq x+yvblUByZIMSyTkbdz6xD5CH9uj+pIPTs6Fy1+1sFuIx6kHDsIZXqL6UaTzMIohQsu8 41G93NClk52ABbt4iEVk1+TBMCfKXtH9pvY8LIMBTz5sSvWZgOvGtzVoEznL20L6kbAf VUEZ9TOxrnmvVK2JZNazPN26J9RqA5nZHBEKs5iNzH8v9NDlC1uDcP3KUym1c2oW7aMv yHDg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=40fGIGW55vM3Zzp5fjR3cjlnWVgI0nQgWlqCdclLpGk=; b=RW2gdZYUB9ziz84UQy04kIg2pEYvyPKn4iMbUf7edJhTxMZPYYPrX2R4w0oOBbxJi3 LxMM6ZQTS0YG0P56PoPg+XXPeT1i8RcmjYYa8RFzu5tF4edbaYyv1IDBtroWfBFSuRTn 0Al3uJ+yAgdhHw2IIyIfTuc8rO535MJjfyHptmvCNZ7nSEZ1Gl3Gsbs2tLSCiPqCvrDx t9Sa2AuJ/QrDxJ4QWgka90uk9418hYRiFCegn0LGKNYNg4K+9LYVLWYvd38gsoA3C9ma 27IBXMNt/1zbNhx8AXvF1cTGsx5F3ypguIIqa9XHr25glkvHqnNfgMl1SvEojLK2AEJn 8pFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUurGO8GftXFZcOn5iMAp7PwzgPga0CMJCn9/u9VieMwIbeBEi3 Wtk+cMc3XrE9VLOSSu2eqJassA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxqhAgkrG4qhlsRCU457GGTb2tTelDOn8RSyyfx7zhZ3E8e7vLUbgGEsS62uVHw9BfNqxZqzg==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:dc4b:: with SMTP id m11mr22042875wrj.344.1574764476260; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:34:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.3.21.206] (gate.haus-staade.de. [80.155.34.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j3sm14087364wrs.70.2019.11.26.02.34.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Nov 2019 02:34:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Message-Id: <047A90BD-A275-4A42-A6F1-58B354872C3B@lodderstedt.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3544161A-6088-4351-970C-993091241CAE"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:34:24 +0100
In-Reply-To: <0911bbfb-c80b-16c2-80a6-b0d0ed35ec55@danielfett.de>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>, Brian Campbell <bcampbell=40pingidentity.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "ve7jtb@gmail.com" <ve7jtb@gmail.com>, Andrey Labunets <isciurus@fb.com>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
To: Daniel Fett <fett@danielfett.de>
References: <CAGBSGjpeXoJXM-UzG2HrXefO6SW_NzFpuzD4Nh=9XPAmg_Wgtw@mail.gmail.com> <A11964CB-DD11-47A0-BA23-19731CB2C2FA@lodderstedt.net> <0911bbfb-c80b-16c2-80a6-b0d0ed35ec55@danielfett.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/BB4zaUpSLzqeTFac314EOh8JdTM>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] WGLC review of OAuth 2.0 Security Best Current Practice by Mike Jones
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: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:34:40 -0000

Moving the discussions to an appendix sounds good.

> On 26. Nov 2019, at 08:17, Daniel Fett <fett@danielfett.de> wrote:
> 
> Am 25.11.19 um 23:02 schrieb Torsten Lodderstedt:
>> Parts of the text in section 4 capture discussions of potential solutions and reasons why we decided in favor of a certain solution. I think this will be useful in the future and it has already proven useful for me, e.g. in the recent discussions around PoP vs audience restriction.
> Then let's move these discussions to an appendix or a separate document. I have the feeling that some sections have too many "could"s, "might"s and "should"s for a normative document. Another point is that the alternative solutions that we are discussing often have not been analyzed as thoroughly as the recommended solutions (see, e.g., PKCE vs. Code-bound State vs. Token binding for Code).
> 
> -Daniel
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email