Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status

Antonio Sanso <> Mon, 12 January 2015 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D38D1A8AA3 for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:25:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gN9GL_CRpdCF for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:606]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B22D21A8AA8 for <>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:24:29 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0053.000; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:24:29 +0000
From: Antonio Sanso <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status
Thread-Index: AQHQK/WYUKxZ5/ijqE2WfW1yra36J5y8TaoA
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:24:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-dmarcaction-test: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005003);SRVR:CO1PR02MB207;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR02MB207;
x-forefront-prvs: 0454444834
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(53754006)(51704005)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(122556002)(15975445007)(64706001)(68736005)(2950100001)(102836002)(2900100001)(40100003)(77156002)(1720100001)(101416001)(99286002)(33656002)(110136001)(2351001)(66066001)(106116001)(105586002)(86362001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(106356001)(82746002)(76176999)(54356999)(50986999)(92566002)(46102003)(83716003)(2656002)(87936001)(2501002)(97736003)(36756003)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR02MB207;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Jan 2015 10:24:28.8914 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fa7b1b5a-7b34-4387-94ae-d2c178decee1
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR02MB207
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:25:18 -0000

hi *,
On Jan 9, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Happy New Year!
> I thought it would be good to quickly summarize where we are with our
> work in OAuth as we start into 2015.
> Late last year we issued a few working group last calls.
> * SPOP
> The WGLC was started already in the summer and led to a huge amount of
> feedback. This lead to an improved draft.
> Nat, John, Naveen: What is the status of the document? What are the open
> issues?
> At a minimum there is the issue with the name of the document since it
> actually does not propose a proof-of-
> possession solution.
> * Token Introspection
> Justin told me that he believes the document is ready for the IESG. I
> will do my shepherd write-up and shepherd review of the latest version
> before I hand it over to Kathleen.
> * Dynamic Client Registration
> We had a fair amount of discussion about this document on the mailing
> list in response to my shepherd write-up. A new version of the document
> has been published and I will have to double-check whether the review
> comments have been incorporated. Then, the document will be ready for
> the IESG.
> * OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession (PoP) Security Architecture	
> We issued a WGLC and received comments, which had not yet been
> incorporated. The obvious next step is to publish a new version of the
> document with the comments addressed. There is also the new mailing list
> <unbearable> and we have to figure out how this aligns with the work we
> are doing. Info is here:
> Derek will be the shepherd for that document.
> I also wanted to produce a short write-up in response to a news story
> late last year that blamed OAuth for getting things wrong while the real
> issue is rather with the way how responsibility are distributed among
> different players in the eco-system. Here is the link to the discussion
> and the news story:
> We also have various documents in IESG processing, namely
> * JWT
> * Assertion Framework
> * SAML Bearer Assertion
> * JWT Bearer Assertion
> Kathleen asked us to do a final review of the documents to make sure
> that various review comments have been addressed appropriately. I am
> planning to have a look at it today.
> There is also a webinar upcoming, namely about Kantara UMA. This webinar
> will be a bit different than earlier presentations you have heard about
> UMA since it will be focused on Internet of Things. This is part of the
> webinar series we do in the IETF ACE working group. Here is a link to
> the announcement:
> Related to the work in this group is the SASL OAuth draft, which is
> currently in WGLC in the KITTEN working group and you might want to do a
> quick review of the document:
> Here is the WGLC announcement from the KITTEN chairs:
> There is also the "authentication in OAuth" topic that we wanted to
> progress. There is a write-up from Justin available, which will inform
> the debate, but there was also interest to do something more official in
> the working group. We discussed this at the last IETF meeting.
> Also at the last IETF meeting we briefly spoke about the token
> exchange/token delegation work and I got the impression that there is a
> bit of confusion about the scope of the work and what functionality
> should be covered in what document.
> The last two topics seem to be suitable for conference calls. So, we
> will try to arrange something to progress these topics.
> Finally, there is the open redirect Antonio raised in
> The
> attack might be difficult to understand but it is still worthwhile
> to make an attempt to explain it to a wider audience (and also the
> mitigation technique). I believe a draft would be quite suitable for
> this purpose and I have spoken with Antonio about it already.

thanks Hannes & Derek for including this here.
Even if I do not have any experience in IETF processes and related I was wondering if there is any change I can take a stub at and try to prepare a draft about this particular issue.
What do you guys think? Is there also anybody that would like to collaborate with me on this matter?



> These are the items that come to mind right now. A lot of work ahead of
> us, as it seems.
> What is missing from the list? Feedback?
> Ciao
> Hannes & Derek
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list