Re: [OAUTH-WG] HTTP Message Signing and OAuth PoP

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 05 May 2021 11:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
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 DD2013A12C4 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2021 04:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 j2bEvTAFr118 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2021 04:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3637A3A12C9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2021 04:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id u20so2035627lja.13 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 May 2021 04:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=azudZGqLt2E6qzZED5+x7GzZwvHF4+DEiBb2xrmjV+w=; b=lkFQTT7ONFT9BB79gxIPz1AWecnLrIbvNsmjJ976p21v1BPLlZBt06Ej2gDsSVtsGV 7Ityg2Zr2W9u3cIJgMh8uRlBjH0DuZGlRcNgrfN7OYkli481nL64/EyO1aaKTO/MD0Sz 7vMciCPpvkC/CEpuPd1B12P2XxoukRe1XTslk8nM6g20+y7v+plqg78l6Hsuj3V9h1c9 imm7ClvTS9RXcs63vhxAuIjWaHrF0R97MyKULUvrD3+h5WmDUb+E8Z0PCt18vRB8gPd7 imqVoeeIR7Bj2ZtmuyMoKf9pAO+UN9xAfXCiEq3VKhXP+ghUp2YIk/SOVfPjt42jNK2j ubEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=azudZGqLt2E6qzZED5+x7GzZwvHF4+DEiBb2xrmjV+w=; b=nLVB6BN+G+NK5t70EeFtaQmA8RjBcUv5jhg7J7QKUnC9ZJoqqhon8wir5rQBJU6+BS QZ6Zc9QYp8YO462+XVh2FHyuKHFVJ7C3mvq9mNgDxII1Pd2Ph5V+T5kC4pMV6XD2e73T cqjVMHWntaeaSrJMybu6nRiE/pkR+2qiYaGEYUdWIA4ppO5K1wqliYc4NFqcuWmVk0S8 E5s1hFRd+3dNVfMyiDuvLWR18DhOWstRf/KDEVeAsQbg0Kv0GN/0d+ScYfWxtGQ/n9kd +mJ+Sj9az2VfpYU2TNYPY07ONn4juxLPKNDFagMZ5qJIxiVadVW6tEGWK2amc6pM1v8f HIAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533t8qaHzuOprZam81dRjBwOG1vfQoh2HEHuzhivaoOo+X1x2Lue RfyIEk9fwwgBncTxHcqOvL4k6dAmURosglVYvj8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwskDuZxZGixfiWyQeCV1wQ/LZ3V1LrbTSwxE/Qb79ga6yP9zVD+ktv6dBMNUP0IQTxPGpjuMrYppZykseb7+k=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:316:: with SMTP id a22mr10993242ljp.255.1620215660883; Wed, 05 May 2021 04:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <288F1E8C-7C56-4488-8825-791086D6EBCE@mit.edu> <CADNypP9HkFgt0gduqoR8kfqB-Cpcewg+ZEu1fPr98uQLM2b-+w@mail.gmail.com> <69EBA40C-96C9-4B30-BD5C-9B5AD5ACEDD6@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <69EBA40C-96C9-4B30-BD5C-9B5AD5ACEDD6@mit.edu>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 07:54:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CADNypP9LdcXSOkRarYqL_D4QE2Z5jnfT4wJfhm6-8hdnvpL+=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed303e05c193dadc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/f6i0ams4LBJzWtnhsMLyr3XDjzI>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] HTTP Message Signing and OAuth PoP
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 05 May 2021 11:54:27 -0000

Would this coming Monday, May 10th @ 12:00 pm ET, work for you?

Regards,
 Rifaat


On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 8:59 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:

> Hi Rifaat,
>
> If you’d like to keep the current mondays-at-noon-ET schedule I can
> support that. Any Monday this month would work for me, and I’ve reached out
> to Annabelle so hopefully she can join as well. I don’t know if I’d be able
> to have the rewrite of the OAuth PoP draft in hand by any of those dates,
> but the concept is straightforward enough to discuss with or without a
> draft.
>
> Thanks,
>  — Justin
>
> On Apr 29, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for the update on this,
> We would be happy to schedule an interim meeting to discuss this.
> Do you have a date in mind?
>
> Regards,
>  Rifaat & Hannes
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:34 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Many of you will remember an old draft that I was the editor of that
>> defined OAuth proof of possession methods using HTTP Message Signing. When
>> writing that draft I invented my own scheme because there wasn’t an
>> existing HTTP message signature standard that was robust enough for our use
>> cases. I’m happy to say that the landscape has changed: Annabelle Backman
>> and I have been working in the HTTP Working Group on HTTP Message
>> Signatures, a general-purpose HTTP signing draft with a lot of power and a
>> lot of flexibility. There’s even a relatively straightforward way to map
>> JOSE-defined signature algorithms into this (even though, to be clear, it
>> is not JOSE-based). The current draft is here:
>>
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-04.html
>>
>> This draft has gone through a lot of change in the last few months, but
>> we, the editors, believe that it’s at a fairly stable place in terms of the
>> core functioning of the protocol now. It’s not finished yet, but we think
>> that any changes that come from here will be smaller in scope, more of a
>> cleanup and clarification than the deep invasive surgery that has happened
>> up until now.
>>
>> One of the things about this draft is that, on its own, it is not
>> sufficient for a security protocol. By design it needs some additional
>> details on where to get key materials, how to negotiate algorithms, what
>> fields need to be covered by the signature, etc. I am proposing that we in
>> the OAuth WG replace the long-since-expired OAuth PoP working group draft
>> with a new document based on HTTP Message Signatures. I believe that this
>> document can be relatively short and to the point, given that much of the
>> mechanics would be defined in the HTTP draft. If this is something we would
>> like to do in the WG, I am volunteering to write the updated draft.
>>
>> I also want to be very clear that I still believe that this lives beside
>> DPoP, and that DPoP should continue even as we pick this back up. In fact,
>> I think that this work would take some pressure off of DPoP and allow it to
>> be the streamlined point solution that it was originally intended to be.
>>
>> If the chairs would like, I would also be happy to discuss this at an
>> interim meeting.
>>
>>  — Justin
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>
>