Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT
Warren Parad <wparad@rhosys.ch> Fri, 05 August 2022 17:41 UTC
Return-Path: <wparad@rhosys.ch>
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 CCCD1C157B53 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.005
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.005 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rhosys.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m4TYU1Vwmnm9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x112a.google.com (mail-yw1-x112a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35029C15C500 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x112a.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-31f661b3f89so30486537b3.11 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 10:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rhosys.ch; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=wO09JKnLpzgqNSHM0J9jqg/aoqX8U2qWYIzz4rWOfDs=; b=JeFIWrDDu9y+r5lC3BW9H1BpzsrZpxadiXKztOngiet7vq7IU9ljSngZ/+JEeOlXEr By1Vm4zyjMnjXI9Q8CAtzGseKWDQZ4Rh9+xKoq/ULlAjYdLtfO7LIoVLSqccDioMhZHz XcX3zOeMD2G8Teo10Inw9gEX6mlnt3kkuoKeFMCD81FC+3sL8rI5IVihDBfU6BOZMyYB SPE6hgBhl0CZ0QlAqqw8CjtR4/1JwCzQP6xuijMCnUwAbhtlbnvFbkTSZXZwO6YEbbV2 OIdD8pBvzDVRTZxD/aXzCQlhnXXnOxpvetiiIBAl/tw7onm3dVPK3RB0YcAkxYPL9Ypp 8YWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=wO09JKnLpzgqNSHM0J9jqg/aoqX8U2qWYIzz4rWOfDs=; b=C2Skaa4mMjuMyoy/Y0fqs1Bm+DbZ/yf2Ub0OYiGheVnb+tOEEJ6wgvTvVqNiqO5lpV YJEK8G2eaAstNvAx1oZ/er3bkXU4fYk7rGRnHwZfmc1v5/qeZC8skhiZgnxe8mwOO2u7 DC5eg2NweJin3wz6SzerRl/i7mypHhKfkrqyK2NckxxZUmOc8231XVf6YZHHJ+wRp1Pt R3lDTkCofprFo9veQPEG/o6lUH+u6/KjixttU2ZDNkgW4+5Ea/Fi0HeMdZ6Zku1Uqs6i WyutGZxfJtF3yJOzF1n3B+y/07GrijrovUAol8oTtX2Kz9kPsc/Bk7lCuYDVqlQxxmrE GHSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0pBu9Ffldy+QXFYqgM4rL+yPNRuZ9e/0X+PagE28xZUvghcyP+ LGOewYR2GTE3hRbBbXtlt1EYKBsC6nbviTGpHUwNP4QEwHyU
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6fa0HeItw6td6ekCA2BwGFk8s9xyL+1A6qyzbKJBa3MgE05lfnh0jHEIJXkAKXMsacPpB96GjhBlCB+WccKEE=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:5c43:0:b0:328:b796:654f with SMTP id q64-20020a815c43000000b00328b796654fmr6764271ywb.18.1659721264220; Fri, 05 Aug 2022 10:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7f46f3f1-d384-37ef-9e76-8cb80995fb4c@verifiablecredentials.info> <1D2C56C5-8155-40A3-BC00-2EF7D12C9122@lodderstedt.net> <9c1c8d86-ed98-a4e3-e864-a00c82a24134@verifiablecredentials.info> <CAODMz5EKYo19JK8Zs0=UhCNdHZM9SddOpCNjqOAA=LpeMXPJ_Q@mail.gmail.com> <5c0091b0-a8ed-3690-fc86-3fa662af0d15@danielfett.de> <CAJot-L3ZQQa0Rragt+ds8bkhHtjXM1hMVgvcShGYxdxYFYAhhg@mail.gmail.com> <937ef7f5-163c-aaab-3f62-bdffb17bf150@danielfett.de> <CAJot-L2vBxsEhPt55o6cxrrdT1TvfWpQKwxGH49UnXK2FqG8Vg@mail.gmail.com> <BAA30BFB-A157-40AC-8199-A1FC0B3DF9DD@danielfett.de> <CAJot-L2+t-7-==+22=sqaC7y7A5O7yGzojRnJF5M8oUHSRJP6g@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR00MB0895DA567B6ACD8DBE3EBAAEE59E9@MN2PR00MB0895.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR00MB0895DA567B6ACD8DBE3EBAAEE59E9@MN2PR00MB0895.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
From: Warren Parad <wparad@rhosys.ch>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 19:40:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJot-L2zr+XYoKfg3NYNAn8xSPT=-EhrwEVpp=aT+LotDrgj7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda=40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Warren Parad <wparad=40rhosys.ch@dmarc.ietf.org>, Daniel Fett <mail=40danielfett.de@dmarc.ietf.org>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006169b605e581f8c2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/P3t3EKk0TJqmUI1Cq0iTmF_Yc7w>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 17:41:08 -0000
Can you list them out succinctly, because I don't feel like they have been? The reason I say that, is if all the entities are online, then the AS can directly issue the restricted token. So the only argument I can see there is "We want to reduce the load on AS by delegating some proportion of the AS responsibilities to the user's client". Although in that case, should we really stop at SD-JWT, or should we go for a solution that actually allows user-clients issued tokens to do more than share user claim values? On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 3:32 PM Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda= 40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Yes, SD-JWT is not complete and that’s exactly why we are asking for a WG > adoption. The questions you are asking are better answered in the WG, > post-adoption. > > Thank you, > Kristina > > PS. Offline claim transmission is not the only “feature” of SD-JWT for all > of the reasons that have been previously outlined in this thread. > > ------------------------------ > *De :* OAuth <oauth-bounces@ietf.org> de la part de Warren Parad <wparad= > 40rhosys.ch@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Envoyé :* vendredi, août 5, 2022 6:25 AM > *À :* Daniel Fett > *Cc :* oauth@ietf.org > *Objet :* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT > > It's clear that good thought has been put into the core of it, more so > than other drafts submitted, but not yet feature complete. > > For example there is no sense of how the private/public key exchange > actually happens. In *holder binding *scenario, it isn't detailed how to > actually include the public key in the sub_jwk claim, or what a "reference" > to the public key actually means. Is the server an AS as in OAuth?, or are > we building on top of another token creation standard? If it is OAuth, It > isn't clear if we need a new indicator in the token response that tells us > that the salt container is attached to the token and that it shouldn't > blindly be passed along. It isn't clear from this discussion if we need > token revocation. > > Assuming it is the OAuth token exchange that we are building on top of, > there are lots of open questions of interoperability. I.e. Does the digest > go in the access token? If it isn't OAuth, we don't have any guide on how > to actually do the token generation, how to verify the signature of the > token with the digest, and I'm sure there are more things. > > We don't need to have both in the same WG, that wasn't my point, the point > is if there is a concrete reason that others aren't working on it, I wanted > to know why. There are JWPs, I don't know anything about them, but it > doesn't really matter if they have different approaches, different cryptos, > etc... Let's look at the features, that's at the core of what matters. So > far the only feature we've been able to nail down is *offline claim > transmission*. Will JWPs support *offline claim transmission*? > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 11:55 AM Daniel Fett <mail= > 40danielfett.de@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> It's not that the people I have spoken to didn't like the idea of SD-JWT. >> It's just on a different layer than JWPs, using a different approach, >> different crypto, providing different features, and on a different >> timeline. There's no compelling reason to have both in the same WG. There >> are nonetheless good reasons to have SD-JWT. Having SD-JWT in OAuth WG is >> not an attempt to "backdoor" anything in! >> >> I also didn't say that we should adopt SD-JWT because it has been >> implemented. You took my statement out of context. I wanted to underline >> that the spec is practically feature-complete and can be implemented today, >> providing the features promised. Meanwhile, JWP is not there yet. >> >> But, SD-JWT is not in production yet. If the OAuth WG decides that >> substantial changes are required, now is the best time for that. >> >> Also, I wanted to highlight with my statement that SD-JWT is easy to >> implement due to its simplicity. >> >> -Daniel >> >> Am 5. August 2022 11:28:49 MESZ schrieb Warren Parad <wparad= >> 40rhosys.ch@dmarc.ietf.org>: >>> >>> Maybe they have a good reason for not wanting it, and then we shouldn't >>> be the WG that backdoor's it in. Also: "other people have already >>> implemented it" is a cognitive fallacy, so let's not use that as a >>> justification we have to make the standard. >>> >>> We should get a concrete reason why a WG that seems like the appropriate >>> one, thinks it wouldn't make sense. If it is just a matter of timing, then >>> whatever. But if there are concrete recommendations from that group, I >>> would love to hear them. >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 10:26 AM Daniel Fett <fett= >>> 40danielfett.de@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 05.08.22 um 10:22 schrieb Warren Parad: >>>> >>>> > and nobody involved in the JWP effort thinks that SD-JWT should be in >>>> that WG once created >>>> >>>> Why? >>>> >>>> For the reasons listed, I guess? >>>> >>>> Also, mind the "As far as I am aware" part, but I don't remember any >>>> discussions in that direction at IETF114. >>>> >>>> -Daniel >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Foauth&data=05%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C03ac1c4a32f6457e128a08da76ccd39d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637952919372957096%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aiBKf9gkCbDEgNPVKHWFPABIHS1s9rSrwSSI%2FVDLmuA%3D&reserved=0> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
- [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Jaimandeep Singh
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Daniel Fett
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Steinar Noem
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Leif Johansson
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Jaromir Talir
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Waite
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Giuseppe De Marco
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Wayne Chang
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Joseph Heenan
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Neil Madden
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Giuseppe De Marco
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Aaron Parecki
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Neil Madden
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Vittorio Bertocci
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Kristina Yasuda
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Neil Madden
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Pieter Kasselman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Jaromir Talir
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Kristina Yasuda
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Neil Madden
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Giuseppe De Marco
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Chadwick
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Jaimandeep Singh
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Daniel Fett
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Daniel Fett
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Daniel Fett
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Kristina Yasuda
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT David Waite
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Warren Parad
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Kristina Yasuda
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Kushal Das
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Nat Sakimura
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Christian Paquin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Jaimandeep Singh
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT Kristina Yasuda