Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status
Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com> Mon, 12 January 2015 10:25 UTC
Return-Path: <asanso@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D38D1A8AA3 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:25:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gN9GL_CRpdCF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0606.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:606]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B22D21A8AA8 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CO1PR02MB206.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.165.144) by CO1PR02MB207.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.242.165.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.53.17; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:24:29 +0000
Received: from CO1PR02MB206.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.237]) by CO1PR02MB206.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.237]) with mapi id 15.01.0053.000; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:24:29 +0000
From: Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com>
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status
Thread-Index: AQHQK/WYUKxZ5/ijqE2WfW1yra36J5y8TaoA
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:24:28 +0000
Message-ID: <459FF4A3-1BBF-43C7-B6BB-C7D831E2FDFD@adobe.com>
References: <54AFAADC.2080106@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <54AFAADC.2080106@gmx.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.147.117.11]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=asanso@adobe.com;
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; H:CO1PR02MB206.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: adobe.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <504A8C70D701E240A4B80AC549BEBDCC@namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: adobe.com
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: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Ov1mRGkzNbY5UPze9hHlJDvnz1k>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:25:18 -0000
hi *, On Jan 9, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> 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 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-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 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-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 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-21 > > 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 > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-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: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13997.html > > 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: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13929.html > > 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: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14015.html > > 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: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth-18 > > Here is the WGLC announcement from the KITTEN chairs: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14020.html > > 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 > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13367.html. 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? regards antonio > 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 > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
- [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status Antonio Sanso
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Status John Bradley