Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 02/02/17 00:28, Mike Jones wrote:
> The other case of known interop testing of "amr" values is for MODRNA
> (OpenID Connect Mobile Profile) implementations.  There's a reference
> to its use of "amr" values in the spec.

Yeah, iirc, that one seemed ok (assuming the reference tells
me what code to write which I assume it does).

I'm still not seeing why some do have sufficient references
and others do not.

Is there some difficulty with finding references or something?

S

> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Nadalin Sent: Wednesday,
> February 1, 2017 4:27 PM To: Stephen Farrell
> <[e-mail]>; Mike Jones
> <[e-mail]>; joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>; The
> IESG <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: RE:
> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> We have interoped between FIDO authenticators vendors and Windows
> Hello
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017
> 4:24 PM To: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; Anthony Nadalin
> <[e-mail]>; joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>; The IESG
> <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: Re:
> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> 
> 
> On 02/02/17 00:21, Mike Jones wrote:
>> Thanks, Tony.  I can add that reference.
>> 
>> Stephen, the sets of initial values were chosen from those used in 
>> practice by Microsoft and Google in real deployments.
> 
> Genuine questions: do you aim to have interop between those 
> deployments? What if I wanted to write code that'd interop with msft
> or google?
> 
> S.
> 
>> 
>> About "otp", there are existing use cases for indicating that an
>> OTP was used.  I'm not aware of any of these use cases where the 
>> distinction between TOTP and HOTP is important.  Thus, having
>> "otp" now makes sense, where having "hotp" and "totp" now doesn't.
>> 
>> Stephen, this may seem like splitting hairs, but the registry 
>> instructions for "Specification Document(s)" are about having a 
>> reference for the document where the Authentication Method
>> Reference Name (such as "otp") is defined.  In all cases for the
>> initial values, this is the RFC-to-be, so the registry instructions
>> are satisfied.  If someone were, for instance, to define the
>> string "hotp", it would be incumbent on the person requesting its 
>> registration to provide a URL to the document where the string
>> "hotp" is defined.  Also having a reference to RFC 4226 in that
>> document would be a good thing, but that isn't what the registry
>> instructions are about.
>> 
>> All that said, I can look at also finding appropriate references
>> for the remaining values that don't currently have them.  (Anyone
>> got a good reference for password or PIN to suggest, for
>> instance?)
>> 
>> -- Mike
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Anthony Nadalin Sent: Wednesday, 
>> February 1, 2017 4:10 PM To: Stephen Farrell 
>> <[e-mail]>; Mike Jones 
>> <[e-mail]>; joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>;
>> The IESG <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: RE: 
>> [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on 
>> draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>> NIST asked for the addition of IRIS (as they are seeing more use
>> of IRIS over retina due to the accuracy of iris)  as they have
>> been doing significant testing on various iris devices and continue
>> to do so, here is a report that NIST released 
>> http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/blog/2012/04/23/nist-iris-recognition-report-evaluates-needle-haystack-search-capability.html
>>
>>
>>
>> 
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, February 1,
>> 2017 2:26 PM To: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>; joel
>> jaeggli <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]> Cc: 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss
>> on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>> On 01/02/17 17:00, Mike Jones wrote:
>>> Thanks for the discussion, Stephen.
>>> 
>>> To your point about "otp", the working group discussed this very
>>>  point.  They explicitly decided not to introduce "hotp" and
>>> "totp" identifiers because no one had a use case in which the
>>> distinction mattered.
>> 
>> Then I'm not following why adding "otp" to the registry now is a
>> good plan.
>> 
>> If there's a use-case now, then adding an entry with a good
>> reference to the relevant spec seems right.
>> 
>> If there's no use-case now, then not adding it to the registry
>> seems right. (Mentioning it as a possible future entry would be
>> fine.)
>> 
>> I think the same logic would apply for all the values that this
>> spec adds to the registry. Why is that wrong?
>> 
>>> Others can certainly introduce those identifiers and register
>>> them if they do have such a use case, once the registry has been 
>>> established.  But the working group wanted to be conservative
>>> about the identifiers introduced to prime the registry, and this
>>> is such a case.
>>> 
>>> What identifiers to use and register will always be a balancing 
>>> act. You want to be as specific as necessary to add practical
>>> and usable value, but not so specific as to make things
>>> unnecessarily brittle.
>> 
>> Eh... don't we want interop? Isn't that the primary goal here?
>> 
>>> While some might say there's a difference between serial number 
>>> ranges of particular authentication devices, going there is 
>>> clearly in the weeds.  On the other hand, while there used to be
>>> an "eye" identifier, Elaine Newton of NIST pointed out that there
>>> are significant differences between retina and iris matching, so
>>> "eye" was replaced with "retina" and "iris".  Common sense
>>> informed by actual data is the key here.
>> 
>> That's another good example. There's no reference for "iris." If
>> that is used in some protocol, then what format(s) are expected to
>> be supported? Where do I find that spec? If we can answer that,
>> then great, let's add the details. If not, then I'd suggest we omit
>> "iris" and leave it 'till later to add an entry for that. And
>> again, including text with "iris" as an example is just fine, all
>> I'm asking is that we only add the registry entry if we can meet
>> the same bar that we're asking the DE to impose on later
>> additions.
>> 
>> And the same for all the others...
>> 
>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> The point of the registry requiring a specification reference is 
>>> so people using the registry can tell where the identifier is 
>>> defined. For all the initial values, that requirement is
>>> satisfied, since the reference will be to the new RFC.  I think
>>> that aligns with the point that Joel was making.
>>> 
>>> Your thoughts?
>>> 
>>> -- Mike
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: OAuth 
>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 7:03 AM To: joel jaeggli 
>>> <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]> Cc: 
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>>> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's Discuss 
>>> on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with DISCUSS)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 01/02/17 14:58, joel jaeggli wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/17 8:26 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>>>>>  draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: Discuss
>>>>> 
>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and
>>>>> reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines.
>>>>> (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please refer to 
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for
>>>>>  more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>>>>>  here: 
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>>>>> 
> -
>>>>> DISCUSS: 
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> 
-
>>>>> 
>>>>> This specification seems to me to break it's own rules. You 
>>>>> state that registrations should include a reference to a 
>>>>> specification to improve interop. And yet, for the strings 
>>>>> added here (e.g. otp) you don't do that (referring to section
>>>>> 2 will not improve interop) and there are different ways in
>>>>> which many of the methods in section 2 can be done. So I
>>>>> think you need to add a bunch more references.
>>>> 
>>>> Not clear to me that the document creating the registry needs
>>>> to adhere to the rules for further allocations in order to 
>>>> prepoulate the registry. that is perhaps an appeal to future 
>>>> consistency.
>>> 
>>> Sure - I'm all for a smattering of inconsistency:-)
>>> 
>>> But I think the lack of specs in some of these cases could
>>> impact on interop, e.g. in the otp case, they quote two RFCs and
>>> yet only have one value. That seems a bit broken to me, so the
>>> discuss isn't really about the formalism.
>>> 
>>> S.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>