Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fixing the Authorization Server Mix-Up: Call for Adoption

Option A: I agree with Mike that the complexity and implementation cost 
of Option B will make adoption harder, which was also a concern with the 
first iteration of Option A.

To be honest, I'm not sure most people would even understand why the 
complexity would be required and just forget about it. At least with the 
simplicity of the most recent option A they don't have to care, just add 
some simple parameters/checks.

And for the record: I've also implemented option A in the 
mod_auth_openidc [1] and lua-resty-openidc [2] clients for Apache and 
NGINX respectively.

Hans.

[1] https://github.com/pingidentity/mod_auth_openidc
[2] https://github.com/pingidentity/lua-resty-openidc

On 2/19/16 9:18 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> Option A.  I have higher confidence that this specification solves the
> problems because it was designed during a 4-day security meeting
> dedicated to this task by a group of over 20 OAuth security experts,
> *including both sets of researchers in Germany who originally identified
> the problem*.  This solution has also been implemented and interop
> tested by Roland Hedberg, Brian Campbell, and I believe others.  Note
> that the reason I am advocating this specification is **not** because
> I'm an editor of it; my role was to record in spec language what the
> OAuth security experts designed together over the 4-day period in Darmstadt.
>
> I’ll also note that even if Option B also solves the problem, it comes
> at significant adoption costs and complexity not found in A.  In
> particular, it requires that developers understand support a new “Link
> Relation” syntax not used elsewhere in OAuth.  As Nat writes about his
> own draft in
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15789.html - there
> is not a standard JSON syntax for link relations.  He writes “we could
> easily create a parallel to it”.  I’d rather we solve the problem using
> standard mechanisms already employed in OAuth, rather than risk
> bifurcating OAuth in the developer community by unnecessarily
> inventing/creating new syntax that is unfamiliar to developers and that
> many of them may reject using.
>
>                                                            -- Mike
>
> P.S.  Information about the OAuth security meeting can be found at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/136Cz2iwUFMdoKWZPCqZRhkmfmHAlJ6kM5OyeXzGptU4/edit
> and
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRa11EgimnTeJZR1-PUpNRpi_u_EoSpO5NtakVbA_sk/edit
> .
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:43 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Fixing the Authorization Server Mix-Up: Call for
> Adoption
>
> Early February I posted a mail to the list to make progress on the
> solution to the OAuth Authorization Server Mix-Up problem discovered
> late last year.
>
> Here is my mail about the Authorization Server Mix-Up:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15336.html
>
> Here is my mail to the list that tries to summarize the discussion
> status and asked a few questions:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15697.html
>
> Unfortunately, my mail didn't lead to the intended success. While there
> was some feedback I wasn't getting the desired response.
>
> In order to move forward I believe we need a working group document that
> serves as a starting point for further work in the group*. We have two
> documents that provide similar functionality in an attempt to solve the
> Authorization Server Mix-Up problem.
>
> So, here is the question for the group. Which document do you want as a
> starting point for work on this topic:
>
> -- Option A: 'OAuth 2.0 Mix-Up Mitigation' by Mike Jones and John Bradley
>
> Link:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-mix-up-mitigation-01
>
> -- Option B: 'OAuth Response Metadata' by Nat Sakimura, Nov Matake and
> Sascha Preibisch
>
> Link:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sakimura-oauth-meta-07
>
> Deadline for feedback is March, 4th.
>
> Ciao
>
> Hannes & Derek
>
> PS: (*) Regardless of the selected solution we will provide proper
> acknowledgement for those who contributed to the work.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

-- 
Hans Zandbelt              | Sr. Technical Architect
hzandbelt@pingidentity.com | Ping Identity