Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth 2.0 base
Rob Richards <rrichards@cdatazone.org> Thu, 17 November 2011 11:51 UTC
Return-Path: <rrichards@cdatazone.org>
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 453AD11E80BD for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:51:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nbp9eCw+kzrh for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2go.com (smtp2go.com [207.58.142.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B1211E80AD for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4EC4F538.6000406@cdatazone.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 06:51:20 -0500
From: Rob Richards <rrichards@cdatazone.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <CALaySJJcPPSU5PAtk9GNL9iFBXj1HfWjkN32GeHsV_Ry2t+o=A@mail.gmail.com> <4EC4EAE6.1020106@cdatazone.org> <CALaySJKTS6D=+JL55QX2aHdUoamgruT0EM0MezVTdVvQQemruw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKTS6D=+JL55QX2aHdUoamgruT0EM0MezVTdVvQQemruw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: oauth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth 2.0 base
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:51:28 -0000
I'm saying that it's very difficult for someone to implement an AS that implements TLS 1.2. TLS 1.2 is not supported in the a good number of systems people deploy on. For example, the use of Apache and OpenSSL accounts for a good number of web servers out there. The only way to deploy a conforming AS is to use a not yet released version of openssl, 1.0.1, and rebuild or use a different crypto library and rebuild. The barrier for entry to use OAuth 2.0 has just became to high for the majority of people out there. I have already hit a scenario where the security group for a company has balked at OAuth 2.0, prior to the change relaxing TLS 1.2 usage, because the deployed system did not support TLS 1.2 and it's against policy to use non-vendor approved versions of packages. Requiring TLS 1.2 is going to cause the majority to release non-conforming deployments of OAuth 2, just as it was before the previous change. Rob On 11/17/11 6:18 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Please refer to this thread about the problem with requiring anything more >> than TLS 1.0 >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg07234.html >> >> You will end up with a spec that virtually no one can implement and be in >> conformance with. I still have yet to find an implementation out in the wild >> that supports anything more than TLS 1.0 > Are you saying that there's some difficulty in *implementing* TLS 1.2 > ? If so, please explain what that difficulty is. > > If you're saying that TLS 1.2 is not widely deployed, and so it's hard > to find two implementations that will actually *use* TLS 1.2 to talk > to each other, I have no argument with you. But that's not the point. > If everyone implements only TLS 1.0, we'll never move forward. And > when TLS 1.2 (or something later) does get rolled out, OAuth > implementations will be left behind. If everyone implements 1.2 AND > 1.0, then we'll be ready when things move. > > I'm pretty sure there'll be trouble getting through the IESG with a > MUST for something two versions old, and a SHOULD for the current > version. > > Barry >
- [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth 2.0 … Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Rob Richards
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Anthony Nadalin
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Rob Richards
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Phil Hunt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Rob Richards
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Zeltsan, Zachary (Zachary)
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Rob Richards
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Eran Hammer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] TLS version requirements in OAuth … Igor Faynberg