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

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
>>
>
>