Re: [OAUTH-WG] PoP Key Distribution

Ludwig Seitz <ludwig.seitz@ri.se> Wed, 04 July 2018 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ludwig.seitz@ri.se>
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 8018C130E3C for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 23:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UcZm3-QFh-ln for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 23:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out10.electric.net (smtp-out10.electric.net [185.38.180.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5E4D120049 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 23:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1fabhb-000EJJ-Ti by out10b.electric.net with emc1-ok (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ludwig.seitz@ri.se>) id 1fabhb-000EKS-UY for oauth@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 23:55:47 -0700
Received: by emcmailer; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 23:55:47 -0700
Received: from [194.218.146.197] (helo=sp-mail-2.sp.se) by out10b.electric.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ludwig.seitz@ri.se>) id 1fabhb-000EJJ-Ti for oauth@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 23:55:47 -0700
Received: from [192.168.0.166] (10.116.0.226) by sp-mail-2.sp.se (10.100.0.162) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 08:55:47 +0200
To: oauth@ietf.org
References: <VI1PR0801MB211213D11E7820FD31218663FA420@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ludwig Seitz <ludwig.seitz@ri.se>
Message-ID: <58eac9f9-21a6-aa6d-ac28-6fce70cfa08e@ri.se>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 08:55:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0801MB211213D11E7820FD31218663FA420@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.116.0.226]
X-ClientProxiedBy: sp-mail-3.sp.se (10.100.0.163) To sp-mail-2.sp.se (10.100.0.162)
X-Outbound-IP: 194.218.146.197
X-Env-From: ludwig.seitz@ri.se
X-Proto: esmtps
X-Revdns:
X-HELO: sp-mail-2.sp.se
X-TLS: TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256:128
X-Authenticated_ID:
X-PolicySMART: 14510320
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (c)
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (s)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/ipINVtLayDOA91TrQ6J0qk8sWr8>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] PoP Key Distribution
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 04 Jul 2018 06:55:55 -0000

On 2018-07-03 21:46, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
...
> Where should the parameters needed for PoP key distribution should be 
> defined? Currently, they are defined in two places -- in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-13 and also in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution-03. In 
> particular, the audience and the token_type parameters are defined in 
> both specs.
> 
> IMHO it appears that OAuth would be the best place to define the 
> HTTP-based parameters. ACE could define the IoT-based protocols, such as 
> CoAP, MQTT, and alike. Of course, this is subject for discussion, 
> particularly if there is no interest in doing so in the OAuth working 
> group.
> 

I fully agree that OAuth would be the best place. I've only drawn some 
of these parameters into draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz because the work on
draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution seemed to have been discontinued 
(it expired August 2017).
That said, I'd hate to introduce a normative dependency into 
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz on a document that will not move forward or 
only move very slowly. What are the prospects of going forward quickly 
with draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution?

> There is also a misalignment in terms of the content.. 
> draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution defined an 'alg' parameter, which 
> does not exist in the draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz document. The 
> draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz document does, however, have a profile 
> parameter, which does not exist in 
> draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution. Some alignment is therefore 
> needed. In the meanwhile the work on OAuth meta has been finalized and 

It seems indeed that 'alg' and 'profile' parameters have some overlap, 
although 'alg' seemed a bit more narrow to me (which is why I created 
'profile').  If we could extend the definition of 'alg' a bit, I'd be OK
to remove 'profile' from the ACE draft (provided the OAuth draft moves 
forward in a timely manner).


/Ludwig

-- 
Ludwig Seitz, PhD
Security Lab, RISE SICS
Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51