Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JWTs spec addressing final shepherd comment

Mike Jones <> Wed, 04 November 2015 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A5A1B35A5 for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:51:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gq0EKfFMbzbx for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDC991B35D2 for <>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:51:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=AKo1VMYxnP5/1eU2KupR9D6i1hN/EQT8+CjMtH1B+xs=; b=Xf/63364MvGfkapJoIEfkqVkUPysrvzuPhVBQ/bBZAQPN7KQgJ45A+PKZHS9fRDhGzv7XywrP22xm9Yc1/sKkW9/ulDnKa0nTim16jfLNlj2Kgeo94EmNx6EoIwX+Julr0nOhzRnlFD03caiV8zXoUE9CbZZm/dv0GSogqhklvA=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.318.15; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 22:51:22 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0318.003; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 22:51:22 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: Brian Campbell <>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JWTs spec addressing final shepherd comment
Thread-Index: AdEXFgZ+9CN0zPNjS1iUuZ0RolJO4QAA29mAAAA+4ZAADhjrAAAADBnA
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:51:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR03MB443; 5:87yypKnPiJ2v8Q+Yoq0V+wPNMyosQqMqDL91e2x8xZfb0r97+TU72nLAPF7cG+Il4DjASDpxUhWIz01NaP4awah/BaGZ9nIHpkVzIV2KhpQT635SJ2guqHMY7X5h9e7jHodgIVRWym21WKnWe65CGA==; 24:EKTVvCrV7WiTx34lNXJtIpFi7xY3GJYuWXY5BNSpK9w1yriGNVXMRCLVKDyhxezLF2VTwfWE9sj/qPo9N6l697HXBeXJ9uCwWeO8VvKiGaw=; 20:5TRblubTX+vGlt/KdgPVIrZoqH1nUlDOmYmsRaFfuTRMnRisH2Qnq7G+Wrxbua3j7LxPh58VxWD19F4aHkyWHQ==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR03MB443;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(108003899814671);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425024)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(520078)(3002001)(10201501046)(61426024)(61427024); SRVR:BY2PR03MB443; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR03MB443;
x-forefront-prvs: 0750463DC9
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(209900001)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(24454002)(51914003)(71364002)(52604005)(93886004)(102836002)(5008740100001)(19609705001)(19625215002)(87936001)(230783001)(122556002)(5004730100002)(77096005)(5007970100001)(101416001)(2900100001)(2950100001)(11100500001)(40100003)(15975445007)(66066001)(76576001)(19300405004)(19580395003)(19580405001)(74316001)(19617315012)(86362001)(33656002)(50986999)(106356001)(54356999)(76176999)(105586002)(81156007)(86612001)(97736004)(99286002)(5001960100002)(5001920100001)(5002640100001)(5005710100001)(10400500002)(10290500002)(110136002)(8990500004)(10090500001)(16236675004)(189998001)(5003600100002)(92566002)(6606295002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB443;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BY2PR03MB44262EA4616E08287A91DB1F52A0BY2PR03MB442namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Nov 2015 22:51:22.0606 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR03MB443
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JWTs spec addressing final shepherd comment
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: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:51:30 -0000

Thanks for the detailed read, Brian.  You’re right that in the symmetric case, either the issuer or the presenter can create the symmetric PoP key and share it with the other party, since the effect is equivalent.  I suspect that both the key distribution draft and this draft should be updated with a sentence or two saying that either approach can be taken.  Do others concur?

                                                            -- Mike

From: Brian Campbell []
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 7:48 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Kepeng Li;
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JWTs spec addressing final shepherd comment

+1 for the diagrams making the document more understandable.
One little nit/question, step 1 in both Symmetric and Asymmetric keys shows the Presenter sending the key to the Issuer. It's possible, however, for the key to be sent the other way. Presenter sending it to the Issuer is probably preferred for asymmetric, especially if the client can secure the private keys in hardware. But I don't know if one way or the other is clearly better for symmetric case and PoP key distribution currently has it the other way<>. Should the intro text somehow mention the possibility that the Issuer could create the key and send it to the Presenter?
I know it's only the introduction but it was just something that jumped out at me.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Mike Jones <<>> wrote:
Thanks for suggesting the diagrams, Kepeng. They make the document more understandable.

-- Mike
From: Kepeng Li<>
Sent: ‎11/‎5/‎2015 12:57 AM
To: Mike Jones<>;<>
Subject: Re: Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JWTs spec addressing final shepherd comment
Thank you Mike.

The diagrams look good to me.

Kind Regards

发件人: Mike Jones <<>>
日期: Thursday, 5 November, 2015 12:32 am
至: "<>" <<>>
抄送: Li Kepeng <<>>
主题: Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JWTs spec addressing final shepherd comment

Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for JWTs draft -06 addresses the remaining document shepherd comment – adding use case diagrams to the introduction.

The updated specification is available at:


An HTML formatted version is also available at:


                                                            -- Mike

P.S.  This note was also posted at and as @selfissued<>.

OAuth mailing list<>