[OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-rosenberg-oauth-aauth-00
Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Thu, 24 July 2025 09:27 UTC
Return-Path: <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: oauth@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DACD4A15B6E; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 02:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rufcHFwApEji; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 02:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x333.google.com (mail-ot1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::333]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDB924A15B4F; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 02:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-73e58d50fe2so470136a34.1; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 02:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1753349247; x=1753954047; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JB9A6W5iJnJo6KNDJbdWtIDmC8CvlMK0kJrrBojvW48=; b=NrNFre83ZVglQe1PjkSzCwgvTnOq/ylYW/iypmxoRVt26GTQhnHsrbQISoWhxb9xAw 9XiFF0AJUdMRrhkgWuWPzvqkU35Ig011icwgkJZK5Jm7WZLrAVINajmso0SuuaBEnhlv Blb8q/n9otXdCroL50nUVVaxHsaLwtKCcxC6h/rH05QptZnFpfAOT+xs97rLn04J3Ay6 MsYSPuvvIxbTXSNeqz8XA3yuPYrQtEHdPCInyXdhZPRGBsADXSrYUMt1RVU7STIYZMSY BEoKmRUhUrQqH1o4cWP/ieC7I4rnlrinldBq8Qo4+n3nDnhb+IPEuIYGenRMgRgwXxje ++TQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1753349247; x=1753954047; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=JB9A6W5iJnJo6KNDJbdWtIDmC8CvlMK0kJrrBojvW48=; b=T+9vKJU/8oKb5ckfkrRhEjBjfhqTL/bVHIdWZc1WqNy0z4k9ZDGKDMTb2YzIEbr6Op CDNks5PemA3xau+uR0hVowOglIIIQBQnGlGVBWJH80F3LdFsi6T1XCGaJtqvXjyp2LzI qi5pjVyJ95W0lUkkZJRf1lHEwUZVYLq02D+/pc5moT0tC4xwqnbtcVf6a7HeglxLRAjY t51EDDlet/SfYDIfVF59Ewv/Gh6jZqbgP6wKqWYvdNe/1DO5yHIL6fYzGc2OFqA1BS49 2K/SvUs/rXYrvwatluqhRRmQqe4rm6uRwMPAEXoqktAD3hd2v5KM0R20jWcGRNGyJO8E mbaw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU3A3qCvfF8TVGXHvZMM9l3vjwdBhxG3PpetAgM9ED8i5CBC3XyfInG/1+lU1FuMwLUHrT65RF/Eum3gQ==@ietf.org, AJvYcCXbSRZ8FB/dCs1jsk7Qv0t2rj26Y2k/th8chXa1bjjI5lI8P36yYYVMg41U1s21P74qURV5udc=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzunNr83/oM1CmlhesI9k10o6cOVas8eF35J5PnaglHTfFyo7uR 1/rGMV68EY5Zq9+b2jnm9OPr6Pl3ajI2YVFMkvH3fu6KGLVHEH1ZH2OF+feT/b7B+aZgTBGVXcN alQkKBbtfnfUTJN74leFmEZUq9UaqCxA=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctyZ5cbnuqnSNEzdyxB3/lRyj2apJlVQ8RCbjsd4RbVH3GMbnzeghzIT8LLU+1 ts7xhE3MsMoSIrSgOhDfDi122XfLap3dw7xR0rb+c1cEbuDQ/FH4OO444CP3SHmNKsJSm8JKcBG QZqy5NrDAndQKbUnQdnuBXKAPbOJ1mS7EHHPdnKphFXClXDKFIqx8ffmpdS6P0ww+mBK4sN2Jot YCpR3u28CC5M9C6c6zrq9U3EmvusoCL0jnZ+5Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHZZQc61XlSPFFoU3NkauLMR9Tq0fW6vKfdhqfOM/tOyRXxIiIOaKmYLzM37xHEQcKR0fNi8SQSZMN4AIghE0s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:3818:b0:73e:9fea:f2cb with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-7408898d80cmr4618634a34.15.1753349246686; Thu, 24 Jul 2025 02:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CO1PR18MB46844001C4CA2621182321BCD95CA@CO1PR18MB4684.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <CAEmcCc6694O8Ec9Zz7zbE=WXKY1Q4kdd0=_-=+-T0NALFqh=HA@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR18MB4684137EDF82D1568633915DD95CA@CO1PR18MB4684.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <CA+23+fH2kdcz_5u+vm75BQPJOooqK1zMZuEc_G_+hz_9JE6whg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+23+fH2kdcz_5u+vm75BQPJOooqK1zMZuEc_G_+hz_9JE6whg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 11:26:50 +0200
X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXzogwmU533_DHlSEUtF3cLoFcuHaKbtbGsl-3m6MTNbXsQncxcXVe396i4
Message-ID: <CAD9ie-sOt014BMkzZYm5+kM37ND4zdE7XrtrMB1SoggX+Pae9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000044340063aa96f71"
Message-ID-Hash: SYKCIJTZ6JUWXXMA2KEPE2LMV52RI4BB
X-Message-ID-Hash: SYKCIJTZ6JUWXXMA2KEPE2LMV52RI4BB
X-MailFrom: dick.hardt@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-oauth.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Lombardo, Jeff" <jeffsec=40amazon.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Patrick White <pat.white@traego.com>, "agent2agent@ietf.org" <agent2agent@ietf.org>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Dick.Hardt@gmail.com
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-rosenberg-oauth-aauth-00
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/l8XpMdR67WEFPartClH5RYrBLIo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:oauth-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:oauth-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:oauth-leave@ietf.org>
Note that CIBA is authentication rather than authorization. On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 11:14 AM Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen2@gmail.com> wrote: > Jeff - > > This message got stuck in the approval filter for agent2agent because it > was too large. I've just approved it and see it now. > > Thanks for your comments, and your pointer to CIBA as a potential solution. > > For the use cases I am interested in, the end user likely doesn't have an > authentication device, or even if they do, they may not be able to access > it. Let me give you a concrete use case to help illustrate my problem. > > A user Bob is a truck driver, finishing his drive for the day. He wants to > book a low cost motel to stay for the evening. While driving, he places a > call (using the hands-free capability of the truck for the voice > conversation). Bob is connected to an AI agent, and he discusses with the > agent a local motel and what is price is. He is doing this through (for > example) Wyndham, which he has an account on, though he doesn't have the > wyndham app on his iphone nor can he look at his mobile phone while > driving. The AI Agent wants to book the room on his behalf with the > reservation API employed by Wyndham. The AI Agent needs an access token to > do so. > > This is a good example of my use case. > > TODAY - the way this works - like it or not (and I suspect your answer is > NOT) - Bob speaks to a live human being. The live human being requests some > identification information for the user - name, email, perhaps DOB, and > based on that, uses the reservation system to create the reservation. The > human contact center agent is logged into the reservation system with their > account as an employee of Wyndham. This account has high privelge, allowing > them to make reservations for any user in the system. This is how most call > centers work today. > > As we have moved that into bots, the pre-genAI versions worked quite > similarly; the bot has some kind of service account in the reservation > system, much like the human agent did. The bot identifies the end user > using PII, much like the human agent did. Then, the bot would make the > reservation using its access token - associated with the service account - > much like the high privilege human user did. As we now move to LLM-powered > AI agents, the current trajectory is to continue to use these high > privelege tokens because they enable these use cases. I am trying to find a > solution wherein can do this with a lower privilege token. > > I certainly recognize the troubles of passing PII and am aware that this > is similar to the Resource Owner Password Grant flow which is now > deprecated. I like the CIBA flow - and when it can work, it is clearly > superior to collection of PII by the AI Agent. And there are many use cases > where it can work - for example a user accessing the hotel through the > website while seated at their desk, having already logged into the website. > But in my use case above, I dont see how the CIBA flow can work. > > Thx, > Jonathan R. > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 10:19 AM Lombardo, Jeff <jeffsec= > 40amazon.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> The scopes to be defined that still can be an AI agent role based on the >> task at stake. There is no issue with that cause the scopes have to be >> provided on the Authorization request to the AS. >> >> My problem is the authentication flow going through the Agent and being >> based on PII. I would prefer an Out-of-Band Authentication if possible, and >> if not at least a dynamic authentication. >> >> In this case, event a battlecard authentication would be better than a >> PII “authentication”, like the AS asking through the Agent give A-9, D-16, >> and E-4 for the user to retrieve the corresponding answer from its secret >> sheet. >> >> >> >> The flow for OOB [which is exactly CIBA] would like in a picture: >> >> >> >> >> >> Here is a Mermaid link to the live Editor: >> https://mermaid.live/edit#pako:eNqlVu9v2jAQ_VdO_rJOY1XapYVEVaeO7kO_TAj2Q5qQKpMcwapjZ45Txqr-7zs7YYUQYNP6qYnv3r17fnfkiSU6RRazEn9UqBK8FTwzPJ8qoL8RN1YkouDKwo0UCe55_aqEm8ouUNFrboVWcIuPneGTqii0obQ7uMkovo6Y6Z8eQBvxq86foHlEU5-2MYZSUCaMMROlNXX8R5UWWqzxdkhuYR-O_awfsB1DT7utjLHUlUlwi6uX4-rq7dvr64PKxHUkiBKM7wMNpkDHFAupD4G5Nv6RF4VssusibRHreodkievEFuWGZ6c4cTvYUS2MtphYYjpbHbiwTxQF2uW0mcY7bxxswgs-k5Qyhw0Vidqb3fyr0efJJ1BVPkMjVHZ9vKJInfpzQYe5yBYWZk5hIx6pjbnROeRoecotr5-c4gmXsgdSPCCsdOUfKao-501xuIMHpZfdN-K4-yZi-IYy0ZRsNZCcdMVSKFdBEcCCP_oKZoPk-6MS3AHPN8fxUPEFt02tVHtDuX6sTvnqb-osnc-JuEGFS8hXZAAsEyMKf-V0XUKVFfVz_BJuveBQJrrAshbSuI1T2uO5Q4OcTjmMRbJo2W68CdIpxB53N6Dbxw0lWAq7gMTP071Ie0BgSBNFhqkbIG_oTKj7BUHBiZfwdSNnZ7lufW8SZyCJaYa5m4QTTsn3xIFqNnBS6wK-kDMk8E6mbnq0Kikd05d91iXE9l6LYaTJ1NsvvUHmUi8JMy8kvmwcXC_A_f0dWXcTggClncebEy9ySrMnZAknXtjei-ivN-y5D3XD6COJvMTNMGz5-9g63sgk2d3Ir_6NQmPF9X3QcnKj4_vywv5p7d-IDWs4h-XW0HqC9gAe5LlnFL5yKdLdYTg6Wv_lqO247gEZo62MakIneIBK67eKuKCh0rQmR3cwdLp5t203-AG5oYXj4VmP5WhyLlL6FnpyhaaMZMxxymL6N8U5r6Sdsql6plCaRT1ZqYTF1lTYY0ZX2YLFcy5LeqoKp2bzIfXnLX0zfNc6X6dkxpVq0mk20Ax1pSyLw7NB4KNZ_MR-svjsXXgaBYP-xXkYnoXB5flFj61YPIhOg4soiPrnURC8i4LL5x775fGD00E_jKKoH52F4eDysh8-_wa4dWW_ >> >> >> >> Here is the Mermaid for those who could not see the picture nor use the >> link: >> >> sequenceDiagram >> >> Participant Alice >> >> Participant Alice's Authentication Device >> >> Participant Support AI Agent >> >> box Authorization Server >> >> Participant Client Registration Endpoint >> >> Participant Authorization Endpoint >> >> Participant Token Endpoint >> >> End >> >> Participant Resource Server >> >> Alice<<-->>Alice's Authentication Device: Alice is registered on the >> device for the application >> >> Support AI Agent<<-->>Client Registration Endpoint: >> >> Resource Server<<-->>Authorization Endpoint: Resource Server is >> protected by Authorization Server >> >> Note over Support AI Agent: Support AI Agent is capable of >> >> Alice->>+Support AI Agent: <PTSN numbering> >> >> Note over Support AI Agent: identifier might be derived from metadata >> from the call, like you call me from a number I know >> >> Support AI Agent->>+Alice: Welcome to our online can I have your >> identifier? >> >> Alice->>+Support AI Agent: I am Alice >> >> Support AI Agent->>+Alice: What can I do for you today? >> >> Alice->>+Support AI Agent: I want to renew my prescription of insulin >> >> Note over Support AI Agent: Derive scopes from request >> >> Note over Support AI Agent: Create a Rich Authorization Request >> >> Support AI Agent->>+Authorization Endpoint: Create Authorization >> request with client_id, generated scopes, login_hint *(*Alice*)* >> >> Authorization Endpoint->>+Support AI Agent: Acknowledgement *(* >> auth_req_id*)* >> >> loop Until authorization request is consented >> >> Support AI Agent->>+Token Endpoint: Poll Token Endpoint for flow >> completion >> >> end >> >> Authorization Endpoint->>+Alice's Authentication Device: Send >> notification with details *(*scope*,* client_id*)* >> >> Alice's Authentication Device->>+Alice: Please Authenticate >> >> Alice->>+Alice's Authentication Device: Authenticate locally >> >> Alice's Authentication Device->>+Alice: Request consenting to scope >> for client_id >> >> Alice->>+Alice's Authentication Device: Consent to all scopes for >> client_id >> >> Alice's Authentication Device->>+Authorization Endpoint: Validate >> Authorization Request >> >> Support AI Agent->>+Token Endpoint: Poll Token Endpoint for flow >> completion >> >> Token Endpoint->>+Support AI Agent: Return Token Set >> >> Support AI Agent->>+Resource Server: Perform API Call with >> Authorization Bearer Token >> >> >> >> >> >> *Jean-François “Jeff” Lombardo* | Amazon Web Services >> >> >> >> Architecte Principal de Solutions, Spécialiste de Sécurité >> Principal Solution Architect, Security Specialist >> Montréal, Canada >> >> ( +1 514 778 5565 >> >> *Commentaires à propos de notre échange? **Exprimez-vous **ici* >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/feedback.aws.amazon.com/?ea=jeffsec&fn=Jean*20Francois&ln=Lombardo__;JQ!!Pe07N362zA!0k9CkAV8Djpw_8EfIAKrbhP3TQrJr0oMnznlUgBJ3V3NoEk6hihx7dNHnQuejn6SSH2CP8Iow3G-tTzppHeg$> >> *.* >> >> >> >> *Thoughts on our interaction? Provide feedback **here* >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/feedback.aws.amazon.com/?ea=jeffsec&fn=Jean*20Francois&ln=Lombardo__;JQ!!Pe07N362zA!0k9CkAV8Djpw_8EfIAKrbhP3TQrJr0oMnznlUgBJ3V3NoEk6hihx7dNHnQuejn6SSH2CP8Iow3G-tTzppHeg$> >> *.* >> >> >> >> *From:* Patrick White <pat.white@traego.com> >> *Sent:* July 22, 2025 7:09 PM >> *To:* Lombardo, Jeff <jeffsec=40amazon.com@dmarc.ietf.org> >> *Cc:* agent2agent@ietf.org; oauth@ietf.org; Lombardo, Jeff < >> jeffsec@amazon.com> >> *Subject:* RE: [EXT] [agent2agent] Review of >> draft-rosenberg-oauth-aauth-00 >> >> >> >> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do >> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and >> know the content is safe. >> >> >> >> *AVERTISSEMENT*: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur >> externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous >> ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas >> certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque. >> >> >> >> Hey Jeff, someone pointed out the OIDC HITL spec here, there's absolutely >> some overlap, but one of the big things that missing is natural language >> descriptions of scopes (well, and also that it's not an oauth flow, but I'm >> not sure how much that matters). At a high level, a really important part >> of the AAuth stuff I proposed is tooling to allow the LLMs to actually >> discover what scopes they need. You could do it as part of a dance (I make >> a request, get the scope demand, then flow that through), but I was trying >> for a model where the models themselves would craft the scope request based >> on the well known scope definition document. Maybe I missed something >> around natural language scope definitions in the OIDC spec, though >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 7:01 PM Lombardo, Jeff <jeffsec= >> 40amazon.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> [+ OAuth WG as this touches their core specs] >> >> Thanks Jonathan and Pat for putting that forward. >> >> >> >> Here are some comments / questions / suggestions: >> >> >> >> - The use cases are very clear and are very good thought experiments >> to rubberstamp / challenge the models of delegated authorization we have >> build so far >> >> >> >> - Unfortunately, the proposition seems to point towards a glorified >> Knowledge Based Authentication (KBA) as it will use PII validation to >> authenticate as a form of “password” in a glorified Resource Owner >> Password Grant type flow as the request is only dealing with the Token >> endpoint… the problems are: >> >> >> - Knowledge Based Authentication is highly insecure cause anyone that >> knowing this static information can impersonate someone else >> - It is based on PII which are Identifiers and not Authentication >> factors, therefore can only allow to identify someone. On top of that, PII >> leak constantly and are no longer considered secure >> >> >> - Also what would prevent the AI agent to fetch those information >> from the internet on behalf od the user as you noted into section *3.1. >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rosenberg-oauth-aauth#section-3.1>Basic >> Token Flow >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rosenberg-oauth-aauth#name-basic-token-flow> >> * >> >> >> >> *By altering the required set of PII elements, designers of AI Agents can >> control the likelihood of hallucination (or malicious prompt injection >> attacks) resulting in a token issuance for the wrong user. The selection of >> the information becomes even more important for AI Agents. Usage of PII >> elements which are known publically becomes a real risk. If these are >> included in the training data for the LLM, it is indeed possible (and >> likely) that the LLM would hallucinate it. For example, if the patient in >> question is a famous actor, and their date of birth is public record in the >> IMDB, it is likely that the LLM would hallucinate the date of birth. >> Consequently, the Authorization Servers can be configured to require >> sufficient number and complexity of PII in order to provide the desired >> level of security.* >> >> >> >> - This hardly advocates for the PII to not flow through the AI cause >> thinking the AS will be smarter than the AI* by configured to >> require sufficient number and complexity of PII in order to provide the >> desired level of security *is a false expectation >> >> >> >> - Resource Owner Password Grant flow is obsolete and deprecated see >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9700.html#name-resource-owner-password-cre >> >> >> >> - Without consideration about the above points we are exchanging an >> AI Agent risk by a very secure AI Agent that could on very misleading / >> spoofable / malicious crafted information. I don’t think this better. >> >> >> >> - Have you evaluated Client Initiated Backchannel Authorization grant >> type flow [ >> https://openid.net/specs/openid-client-initiated-backchannel-authentication-core-1_0.html >> ] before designing this new specification? >> >> >> - This would perfectly fit into the following specification statement >> in section *3.2. >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rosenberg-oauth-aauth#section-3.2>Human-In-The-Loop >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rosenberg-oauth-aauth#name-human-in-the-loop> >> * >> >> *Initiate the consent review flow with the user. This spec does >> not specify how this occurs, it could be through an app, a chat client, or >> some other mechanism.* >> >> >> >> My 0.02 Canadian Dollars >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> *Jean-François “Jeff” Lombardo* | Amazon Web Services >> >> >> >> Architecte Principal de Solutions, Spécialiste de Sécurité >> Principal Solution Architect, Security Specialist >> Montréal, Canada >> >> ( +1 514 778 5565 >> >> *Commentaires à propos de notre échange? Exprimez-vous **ici* >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/feedback.aws.amazon.com/?ea=jeffsec&fn=Jean*20Francois&ln=Lombardo__;JQ!!Pe07N362zA!0k9CkAV8Djpw_8EfIAKrbhP3TQrJr0oMnznlUgBJ3V3NoEk6hihx7dNHnQuejn6SSH2CP8Iow3G-tTzppHeg$> >> *.* >> >> >> >> *Thoughts on our interaction? Provide feedback **here* >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/feedback.aws.amazon.com/?ea=jeffsec&fn=Jean*20Francois&ln=Lombardo__;JQ!!Pe07N362zA!0k9CkAV8Djpw_8EfIAKrbhP3TQrJr0oMnznlUgBJ3V3NoEk6hihx7dNHnQuejn6SSH2CP8Iow3G-tTzppHeg$> >> *.* >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> agent2agent mailing list -- agent2agent@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to agent2agent-leave@ietf.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> agent2agent mailing list -- agent2agent@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to agent2agent-leave@ietf.org >> > _______________________________________________ > agent2agent mailing list -- agent2agent@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to agent2agent-leave@ietf.org >
- [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-rosenberg-oauth-aauth-… Lombardo, Jeff
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Review of draft-rose… Patrick White
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Review of draft-rose… Lombardo, Jeff
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Review of draft-rose… Nick Watson
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Review of draft-rose… Patrick White
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Re: Review of dr… Leonard Rosenthol
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Re: Review of dr… Dick Hardt
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-… Jonathan Rosenberg
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-… Lombardo, Jeff
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-… Dick Hardt
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-… Aaron Parecki
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Re: Review of dr… Leonard Rosenthol
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-… Nick Watson
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Re: Review of dr… Lombardo, Jeff
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Re: Review of dr… Leonard Rosenthol
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Re: Review of dr… Lombardo, Jeff
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Re: Review of dr… Dick Hardt
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Re: Review of dr… Aaron Parecki
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-… Dick Hardt
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-… Aaron Parecki
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-… Dick Hardt
- [OAUTH-WG] Re: [agent2agent] Re: Review of draft-… Aaron Parecki