IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Downgrades, Transitional Rollout & Mixed Token Type Deployments

Nov Matake <matake@gmail.com> Sun, 07 June 2020 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <matake@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 0FEB53A0D6F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 04:33:54 -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 ZiAMolgGp4pJ for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 04:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (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 47BAD3A0D6E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jun 2020 04:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id p21so7379902pgm.13 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Jun 2020 04:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=VpnrxNoJdUpg9ayERMzhF4PR5eh9cEW3kirr3Sf6LkI=; b=hXz2nyzsffDedjFL2TYCY/9yCSDAPUe4bY5vcmA6EVeBWV9KmO/VgtJkJI78qOMWAm AgODPyODF11/inArg5shBUqyKikb8PbTMAk8dEGd1BDTNalm9+uoLOQ5jmqlCm8pgeGF Oz0r8D4z4kGHeeKD+Kq4FT2sHPCcDjFJDf1zC+Rrw6OLuglOvMr4Gvb/56Z4715WebK3 SGFTfzH3+mQdhPRFrpZlC7FMBydwWloOwOS8zRRz959ut4pFzGnq4W7C/ZoHnfamVDs9 fm0UN0JBupOGH1TEirfIXvcpqYc2cLkBCk2y7i9luO1MWA7c4OLr77YZ6kkOOpe5SNpn 0fnQ==
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=VpnrxNoJdUpg9ayERMzhF4PR5eh9cEW3kirr3Sf6LkI=; b=tbs6CSas/5HNjhrrf+1qyb/S+mzRJBOUIvDoCeFGwt3xkrHh3UGNw9f5rzemVN/3Ba chXICdrsQAKEX/E3ugvn/YnJQtHoobGXVx2yWl7wWiKpexe5Enpr0yfeP+NwYQrULS65 lZDjyVmuRlkx3tLtLiVHuYTnzPc9l8ibo6YXBV1+S96gkrzfQzFUsHGcmYo9y85mJ6UM FY/SQPknH53WIMaSTcOUYzjrGa4ZBWk9BCnZV9JtlOIDVii2uNjaOX4Ock8L5HZuNkD1 hQcbexdOXw7KnOewHdvU5X8xRSY8zQCSZOxlttfWYF/e7b25KzP0xvSylMu7z7TGpogg lb+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532SIHHdDGGnps8FHnKuuAJ5uXDLt4ZdMC3VpG4iHI0+jxa8oJx4 +TAYCyFEUPTNB+iy6fyUoBEPtCYXyro=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygdHqiBmpf9cCfojhqS1lQ6SqRknz2uHoMUViPUILhRS/FLBZsuYFk0zGeJ9s4D417WmnY3g==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8a4c:: with SMTP id n12mr17162350pfa.326.1591529629630; Sun, 07 Jun 2020 04:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.80.79] (122x210x153x65.ap122.ftth.ucom.ne.jp. [122.210.153.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ds11sm12648819pjb.0.2020.06.07.04.33.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Jun 2020 04:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nov Matake <matake@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <BE34F5A7-7E00-48AC-8DAC-5F29235C3528@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_85B83CA8-2F07-42A2-A43D-FA58B4F02DA1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2020 20:33:46 +0900
In-Reply-To: <1ABEEE6B-761E-458B-937D-F3581BC6DE55@lodderstedt.net>
Cc: Francis Pouatcha <fpo@adorsys.de>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
References: <8590F26F-309F-4F84-B99F-2D29353859B5@gmail.com> <1ABEEE6B-761E-458B-937D-F3581BC6DE55@lodderstedt.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Nx9OfBP7jhLn9f2jc-0RZwx_XeE>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Downgrades, Transitional Rollout & Mixed Token Type Deployments
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: Sun, 07 Jun 2020 11:33:54 -0000

Confidential clients can also use DPoP.

> 2020/06/07 20:25、Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>のメール:
> 
> If the client would register for every transaction.
> 
> And don’t forget, DPoP also supports sender constrained access to resource servers, which dyn registration does not.
> 
>> Am 07.06.2020 um 13:04 schrieb Nov Matake <matake@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> Since each client instance has at least one key, those are same level of state management.
>> 
>>> 2020/06/07 16:24、Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net <mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net>>のメール:
>>> 
>>> There are similarities in this particular use case but I would argue DPoP is more light weight than dynamic client registration, less state management in particular.
>>> 
>>>> Am 07.06.2020 um 05:41 schrieb Nov Matake <matake@gmail.com <mailto:matake@gmail.com>>:
>>>> 
>>>> DPoP-bound refresh token seems feature duplication with dynamic client registration.
>>>> 
>>>>> 2020/06/07 7:57、Francis Pouatcha <fpo=40adorsys.de@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:fpo=40adorsys.de@dmarc.ietf.org>>のメール:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> > Am 05.06.2020 um 22:17 schrieb George Fletcher <gffletch=40aol.com <http://40aol.com/>@dmarc..ietf.org <http://ietf.org/>>:
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Secondly, I do think we need a way to allow for the refresh_token to be bound while leaving the access_tokens as bearer tokens. This adds useful security without impacting existing RS deployments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1 that’s a very useful feature_______________________________________________
>>>>> AFAIK a refresh_token is always bound. What am I missing here?
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Francis Pouatcha
>>>>> Co-Founder and Technical Lead at adorys
>>>>> https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/ <https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/>_______________________________________________
>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>>>> 
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email