Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application - Was: Re: Last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-10

Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> Tue, 04 June 2013 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jricher@mitre.org>
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 6B5FB21E80A5 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.585, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NWlD+NAI2ESw for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5986821F9F24 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 65FED1F03CA; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:46:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCCAS04.MITRE.ORG (imccas04.mitre.org [129.83.29.81]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B6A1F038C; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:46:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.146.15.13] (129.83.31.56) by IMCCAS04.MITRE.ORG (129.83.29.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.342.3; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:46:33 -0400
Message-ID: <51AE19BA.1090806@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:45:46 -0400
From: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
References: <85AA2C66-108B-4276-92EE-2D7566E54990@oracle.com> <6AF52CCD-4D6B-4696-8465-3345FFFDBE9C@mitre.org> <A1F47E63-DFE6-41A2-9F91-2DB44091D94C@oracle.com> <8EFC7565-0E81-4688-9AEB-459E7503F609@mitre.org> <6D11C230-31F6-4206-8F29-B1F2BFB5C17E@oracle.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436773435C@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <B0C50AAD-97F0-4E55-A30D-C011B012A3DB@oracle.com> <519A42B4.2020803@mitre.org> <2B22BE68-6903-4C5B-8B0F-A10EB5BA74FE@oracle.com> <519B7AA5.3070908@mitre.org> <D4A8CBBB-2929-4B8D-BE05-086F895F0930@oracle.com> <519B9623.8030403@mitre.org> <C7C4CA9B-1C34-452A-B3C3-0BBE9EF1ECB7@oracle.com> <sjmr4gi4o3a.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org> <13631B8F-D3FA-47E6-9176-812840BA507F@oracle.com> <c842d056-82f1-4d23-b130-4bd7f6ea0057@email.android.com> <1AB6F2B5-BBDE-476C-B30E-33510EAA024C@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <1AB6F2B5-BBDE-476C-B30E-33510EAA024C@oracle.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080405080203020503030403"
X-Originating-IP: [129.83.31.56]
Cc: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>, "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Client Instances of An Application - Was: Re: Last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-10
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:46:49 -0000

I agree with the goal of standardizing on identifying software 
instances, but I think it's out of scope to do so inside of dynamic 
registration when most dynamic registration use cases don't need it and 
won't use it. I think that you've got to define discovery, assertion 
contents, and a few other things in order to make it work and 
interoperable across different services. Do we really want to define 
assertion formats and server/client discovery and processing rules 
inside of dynamic registration? I really don't think that's beneficial, 
either to dynamic registration itself or to the problem that the 
software instance tracking is trying to solve.

If this gets proposed as a separate document, I will support it and I 
will help work on it. Heck, I'll even help edit the thing (or things) if 
people want. But I strongly believe that it's a separate concern from 
dynamic client registration, and I think it needs to have its own proper 
discussion apart from that.

  -- Justin

On 06/04/2013 02:28 AM, Phil Hunt wrote:
> Yes. However the contents and format are out of scope.
>
> Phil
>
> On 2013-06-03, at 22:32, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net 
> <mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> isn't the initial registration token such a credential, which allows 
>> to co-relate different instances of the same software?
>>
>> regards,
>> Torsten.
>>
>>
>>
>> Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com <mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com>> schrieb:
>>
>>     Finally i believe the bb+ doesn't have the issue because they are solving with an initial authn credential that contains the same info.
>>
>>     My feeling is that this functionality needs to be standardized one way or another.
>>
>>     Phil
>>
>>     On 2013-06-03, at 19:16, Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com  <mailto:derek@ihtfp.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Phil, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com
>>         <mailto:phil.hunt@oracle.com>> writes:
>>
>>             Not quite. I will call you. I am saying we are
>>             transitioning from the old public client model. The new
>>             model proposes quasi-confidential characteristics but in
>>             some respects is missing key information from the public
>>             m! odel. Namely that a group of clients are related and
>>             there have common behaviour and security characteristics.
>>             We need to add to the self-asserted model an assertion
>>             equiv to the old common client_id. That is all. I am NOT
>>             looking for a proof of application identity here. That is
>>             too far. But certainly what we define here can open that
>>             door. Phil
>>
>>         I think I understand what you're saying here. In the "old
>>         way", a public client had a constant client_id amongst all
>>         instances of that public client, whereas in the "new way", a
>>         public client will have different client_ids amongst all
>>         instances of that client. You feel this is a loss, whereas it
>>         seems most people seem to feel this change is okay. Since you
>>         are effectively the lone dissenter on this one topic, let me
>>         ask you a question: What is a technical reason that you need
>>         to have a constant, assertion that would bind to! gether (in
>>         a non-authenticated way) multiple instances of a client? I
>>         believe that Justin has provides some attacks against this;
>>         so I'm trying to understand, (with my chair hat on), why you
>>         need this functionality? With my security-mafia hat on, I
>>         feel like the old way was bad, and I much prefer the newer
>>         way where each instance of a client gets its own ID and a
>>         locally-stored secret. -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
>>         derek@ihtfp.com <mailto:derek@ihtfp.com> www.ihtfp.com
>>         <http://www.ihtfp.com> Computer and Internet Security Consultant 
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     OAuth mailing list
>>     OAuth@ietf.org  <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth