Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-campbell-oauth-tls-client-auth-00.txt

Samuel Erdtman <> Fri, 11 November 2016 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181EC1297CC for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:41:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mVnOrjnDeNBa for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 446F9129437 for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f82so101772630wmf.1 for <>; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:41:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dLxp8/xYixpiE12Cp/qUiiyiWuZd+DeA3vPAz6qOa0M=; b=r7nWTCeNgmrG2Tb0hw5Fv4byYewFFKJ8w6un9sY0haDlyIDT3boBPDevYpXNHrs8sZ FXD82RpOpmq/2MCotO1KloMj8F7uHd1WiShq1FRB1Z0ggQCRxoMUUN6ijuZr295kUtvm J40PId9wWZPZcj8OI+xOIo39BWsexi4wkEbK9//K/I7HFf8mteFHfeyatFw+BX2XKc2q qIAW5ZUDpV2j7UQTEPCz9wYgOTzq6NWHKpIQ7UZdrGe9T2Phas0XBW425/Ff5sVgzeIO P0tHM885mXEKBvI1dDrFVSklV6/iwMO2WAftvWpnkXpabj5QMeS9gIDpSnI1ydqoaOA0 m0qg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dLxp8/xYixpiE12Cp/qUiiyiWuZd+DeA3vPAz6qOa0M=; b=WU2z4hAERG/O/SaVv7QHl1DEXfm7O8qebVVFEh5bIxhqHYjdzNc2UGXK/aPB+RizKQ ZEJO6u7C+AFlYMQYdHNye2FKRG8McZMXFL66YftcUG0yLNTFGuyqrZl10Ey5fOIyebZP uwgTL/VEjQ0GRT8V8cgI7rk/xZYriKAqRSAx+moWNqMIOVn+EhvH+b80Wh/Z9d8YPq9x JNOCjHKVxDq6dntekKGcMJsFPNADbQTzxhEL75R8eUwPQU01Y/KXteCM9Q93VNjGi6jZ SifYyJCHQCot9pkONtmlHvufBsrWNqfdvBCMMZNNpFKFEaxayf/O8tHKRvotJrpWBg4l fTDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngverd5jl43ubqxjvXAfBdtT/2DvyScYpPPviqoViAsfsF6MQVr7g5rtPV4wZuQAduDkL/ZNIhmXxe7UITw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z7mr13389319wmg.83.1478882478332; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:41:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:41:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Samuel Erdtman <>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:41:17 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Justin Richer <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114b05fcc939dd0541092847"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Nat Sakimura via Openid-specs-fapi <>, OAuth WG <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-campbell-oauth-tls-client-auth-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:41:23 -0000

Just a quick comment, see inline

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Justin Richer <> wrote:

> I agree that the client_id is unlikely to be found inside the certificate
> itself. The client_id is issued by the authorization server for the client
> to use at that single AS. The certificate is issued by the CA for the
> client to use on any connection. The AS and CA are not likely to be the
> same system in most deployments. The client will use the same cert across
> multiple connections, possibly multiple AS's, but the same isn't true of
> the client_id.
> Additionally, I think we want to allow for a binding of a self-signed
> certificate using dynamic registration, much the way that we already allow
> binding of a client-generated JWK today.
Should this specification then extend the dynamic registration
specification ( with the certificate
parameter to actually do the registration or is that another document?

> I do think that more examples and guidance are warranted, though, to help
> AS developers.
>  -- Justin
> On 11/2/2016 5:03 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Samuel Erdtman <> wrote:
>> I agree it is written so that the connection to the certificate is
>> implicitly required but I think it would be better if it was explicit
>> written since the lack of a connection would result in a potential security
>> hole.
> That's fair. I agree it can be made more explicit and that it be good to
> do so.
>> When it comes to the client_id I think subject common name or maybe
>> subject serial numbers will be the common location, and I think an example
>> would be valuable.
> In my experience and the way we built support for mutual TLS OAuth client
> auth the client_id value does not appear in the certificate anywhere. I'm
> not saying it can't happen but don't think it's particularly common.
> I can look at adding some examples, if there's some consensus that they'd
> be useful and this document moves forward.
>> I´m not saying it is a bad Idea just that I would prefer if it was not a
>> MUST.
>> With very limited addition of code it is just as easy to get the
>> certificate attribute for client id as it is to get it from the HTTP
>> request data (at least in java). I also think that with the requirement to
>> match the incoming certificate in some way one has to read out the
>> certificate that was used to establish the connection to do some kind of
>> matching.
> Getting data out of the certificate isn't a concern. I just believe that
> the constancy of having the client id parameter is worth the potential
> small amount duplicate data in some cases. It's just a -00 draft though and
> if the WG wants to proceed with this document, we seek further input and
> work towards some consensus.
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing listOAuth@ietf.org