[OAUTH-WG] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-12: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 01 April 2021 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietf.org
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0ACD3A2263; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 13:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt@ietf.org, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, hannes.tschofenig@arm.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161730912872.14258.15710315415917535021@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 13:32:08 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/MLwNo-_IREa9rtjbO2xQB-mRwnc>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 20:32:09 -0000

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


(2.1) "...can use any signing algorithm." I presume there ought to be some
qualifiers on allowed algorithms?

(4) and (5) "This specification
   does not provide a mechanism for identifying a specific key as the
   one used to sign JWT access tokens."

I don't understand; there's a key ID right there in the token header?

(4) I presume it's important that any resouree server rejection of the token
should be constant-time. Is this somewhere in the RFC tree, or do we need to
explicitly say it here and/or in Security Considerations?