Re: [OAUTH-WG] First Draft of OAuth 2.1

Pedro Igor Craveiro e Silva <pigor.craveiro@gmail.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <pigor.craveiro@gmail.com>
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 7265B3A0101 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=gmail.com
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 ao0UCIvAMI1J for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92a.google.com (mail-ua1-x92a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92a]) (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 E3A7D3A02BC for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92a.google.com with SMTP id b2so2558659uas.13 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cYl6VcFNnOnF8AqU21ih3bWN6KEMr0uESqCOd85+bZ4=; b=II2W00C2FkVy4HM/fif8lTpcimSd80hh4anpMoDITg7i4WeFQ/9zlzZ/sH40t7AuJy NeEcg/P2HbGKbrCKQLAL36OUffYX11DPgkQYDbIVtyYnbC4llaHr83aMdwdVMLOxzgRv 7jeD42epWfCxjcOQ96L8jUkSyC8PvmDCymiyTHud9sWtoW68QNZWMPY7WUS+4KIpzHTE G64xWwWbHraom4WzZuwZKNS6fHFy9XJpzZbniJIaxfm+qhT91p/zRn9u9MCPcQW87x9C W9OWIPD8qbZV75pmoNL+dO8E4SHN2rXxcZGZ4Ehux8H+H2PY0svO9WiZZj43AQGA387G AF8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cYl6VcFNnOnF8AqU21ih3bWN6KEMr0uESqCOd85+bZ4=; b=St4yGWp10BBWCzE38SsLgwkT0BpFEkwZt1vYg8p//8U7eksNmFyEPKxoLWvFNv6zY5 +k1pASbDLAcEXovBKSc5bOV9TrJiT+or3WQLleZta73xo/wSzMyO1K0y1kgWGnFkLY2o H/hlWGle1xHPNKwQOKb1ac4Yn6kGvz1kkI1Ovc5cIa+a4n8sFHyOwzGTB/dnhLXddBm6 RS1Whw1yBNweE17XyJGphanRGLBp4+GK96lQZltqmJgEe0pemZPldhIybDdgGnEA/Yfe EuIkUyzSWCyNEW8uK2BTjsv/xpf1FTC5XrXiibnfuQWrYQoCxSfi7/wwH/cPTTXqaTID bBKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1jQqDQYEAqVuKFEYv24OhQ2t71qHiSS1HBDbWQY03Js9mDrym9 C2WpNcqLFMJ6UvIvS1WkjBGG164Mfc3yixo3yjINjIq1HZA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?ADFU+vv+SNX+i0A6QIbga6V+Chg08xF8vQuoM0YQKPYz?= =?utf-8?q?15H2/yoZb8J9BpjH/Mei/eK+Udh6O6G4tT0wZ6+JftxS0KI=3D?=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:133:: with SMTP id 48mr6052731uak.69.1584040963652; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGBSGjp6xRL21fdY+dosAhwS3Db6z1hxHU5uPGGprC-c_Ec-Cg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGBSGjp6xRL21fdY+dosAhwS3Db6z1hxHU5uPGGprC-c_Ec-Cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pedro Igor Craveiro e Silva <pigor.craveiro@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:22:30 -0300
Message-ID: <CA+3s2iTq2F7dimuFs9rnAt87YhVscdrvMoa0ChbagtC5w=G5cA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f2d96805a0ad4615"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/NmFDpN4y_HKXIVql7W2nrb1UJ5I>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] First Draft of OAuth 2.1
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:22:50 -0000

Hi Aaron,

In regards to `code_challenge_method` parameter in authorization requests.
Wouldn't make more sense to have the default value as `S256` based on the
statement in Section `4.1.1.2.  Client Creates the PKCE Code Challenge`
that says that `S256` is MTI on the server?

So you have `plain` as a special case for clients not able to support a
more strong code challenge?

Regards.
Pedro Igor

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:29 PM Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote:

> I'm happy to share that Dick and Torsten and I have published a first
> draft of OAuth 2.1. We've taken the feedback from the discussions on
> the list and incorporated that into the draft.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-parecki-oauth-v2-1-01
>
> A summary of the differences between this draft and OAuth 2.0 can be
> found in section 12, and I've copied them here below.
>
> > This draft consolidates the functionality in OAuth 2.0 (RFC6749),
> > OAuth 2.0 for Native Apps (RFC8252), Proof Key for Code Exchange
> > (RFC7636), OAuth 2.0 for Browser-Based Apps
> > (I-D.ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps), OAuth Security Best Current
> > Practice (I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics), and Bearer Token Usage
> > (RFC6750).
> >
> >   Where a later draft updates or obsoletes functionality found in the
> >   original [RFC6749], that functionality in this draft is updated with
> >   the normative changes described in a later draft, or removed
> >   entirely.
> >
> >   A non-normative list of changes from OAuth 2.0 is listed below:
> >
> >   *  The authorization code grant is extended with the functionality
> >      from PKCE ([RFC7636]) such that the only method of using the
> >      authorization code grant according to this specification requires
> >      the addition of the PKCE mechanism
> >
> >   *  Redirect URIs must be compared using exact string matching as per
> >      Section 4.1.3 of [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]
> >
> >   *  The Implicit grant ("response_type=token") is omitted from this
> >      specification as per Section 2.1.2 of
> >      [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]
> >
> >   *  The Resource Owner Password Credentials grant is omitted from this
> >      specification as per Section 2.4 of
> >      [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]
> >
> >   *  Bearer token usage omits the use of bearer tokens in the query
> >      string of URIs as per Section 4.3.2 of
> >      [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]
> >
> >   *  Refresh tokens must either be sender-constrained or one-time use
> >      as per Section 4.12.2 of [I-D.ietf-oauth-security-topics]
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-parecki-oauth-v2-1-01#section-12
>
> I'm excited for the direction this is taking, and it has been a
> pleasure working with Dick and Torsten on this so far. My hope is that
> this first draft can serve as a good starting point for our future
> discussions!
>
> ----
> Aaron Parecki
> aaronparecki.com
> @aaronpk
>
> P.S. This notice was also posted at
> https://aaronparecki.com/2020/03/11/14/oauth-2-1
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>