Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of Draft-ietf-dyn-reg

Mike Jones <> Tue, 24 February 2015 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E961A19EF for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:48:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N-g9efUgDwh6 for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 085F41A03E3 for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:48:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:48:42 +0000
Received: from (2a01:111:f400:7c09::194) by (2a01:111:e400:2428::51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id via Frontend Transport; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:48:41 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id via Frontend Transport; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:48:40 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.003; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:47:55 +0000
From: Mike Jones <>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <>, Hannes Tschofenig <>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of Draft-ietf-dyn-reg
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:47:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943A2264EC6TK5EX14MBXC290r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
Received-SPF: Pass ( domain of designates as permitted sender); client-ip=;;
Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is;; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(438002)(164054003)(24454002)(51704005)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(52604005)(479174004)(85806002)(69596002)(19580405001)(93886004)(230783001)(76176999)(19580395003)(84326002)(26826002)(46102003)(87936001)(6806004)(19625215002)(33656002)(50986999)(54356999)(64706001)(66066001)(16236675004)(15395725005)(86362001)(19300405004)(86612001)(512874002)(2920100001)(77156002)(2900100001)(2950100001)(68736005)(97736003)(2656002)(55846006)(102836002)(92566002)(19617315012)(81156004)(15975445007)(106466001)(104016003)(62966003)(106116001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB393;; FPR:; SPF:Pass; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR03MB393;
X-O365ENT-EOP-Header: Message processed by - O365_ENT: Allow from ranges (Engineering ONLY)
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <>
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005004); SRVR:BY2PR03MB393;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 04976078F0
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR03MB393;
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2015 23:48:40.9988 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47; Ip=[]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR03MB393
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of Draft-ietf-dyn-reg
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:48:48 -0000

Thanks, Kathleen.  This had been discussed on the OAuth list before, but just in case you or the IETF legal counsel weren’t aware of it – the reason that it’s OK to produce derivative works from OpenID specs, as draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg did, is that it’s explicitly allowed by the OpenID Foundation.  See this text at – the spec from which text was copied:

The OpenID Foundation (OIDF) grants to any Contributor, developer, implementer, or other interested party a non-exclusive, royalty free, worldwide copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works from, distribute, perform and display, this Implementers Draft or Final Specification solely for the purposes of (i) developing specifications, and (ii) implementing Implementers Drafts and Final Specifications based on such documents, provided that attribution be made to the OIDF as the source of the material, but that such attribution does not indicate an endorsement by the OIDF.

You could pass that on to the appropriate IETF legal counsel if they’re not already aware of it.

                                                                -- Mike

From: OAuth [] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3:08 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of Draft-ietf-dyn-reg


Thanks for updating the draft.  I just want to confirm that Hannes is okay with the updated definitions and updates the shepherd report to reflect that.

This is getting held up a bit while we sort through copyright of text from UMA and OpenID.  The text from UMA went into an IETF draft, so that should be the reference as it clears up any possible issues as they provided that text in an IETF draft.

The chairs will be helping to sort out the requirements with OpenID, per our discussions the IETF trustees.  I'm not sure how long this will take, but wanted to provide a status so no one thought this had been dropped.


On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <<>> wrote:
Hi Justin, Hi John,

I believe that provisioning a client with a unique id (which is what a
client id/client secret is) allows some form of linkability. While it
may be possible to associate the client to a specific user I could very
well imagine that the correlation between activities from a user and
those from the client (particularly when the client is running on the
user's device) is quite possible.


On 02/18/2015 06:37 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
> I’ll incorporate this feedback into another draft, to be posted by the
> end of the week. Thanks everyone!
>  — Justin
>> On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
>> <<>
>> <<>>> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:07 AM, John Bradley <<>
>> <<>>> wrote:
>>     snip
>>>     On Feb 18, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
>>>     <<>
>>>     <<>>> wrote:
>>>         > The client_id *could* be short lived, but they usually aren't. I don't see any particular logging or tracking concerns using a dynamic OAuth client above using any other piece of software, ever. As such, I don't think it requires special calling out here.
>>>     Help me understand why there should not be text that shows this
>>>     is not an issue or please propose some text.  This is bound to
>>>     come up in IESG reviews if not addressed up front.
>>     The client_id is used to communicate to the Authorization server
>>     to get a code or refresh token.  Those tokens uniquely identify
>>     the user from a privacy perspective.
>>     It is the access tokens that are sent to the RS and those can and
>>     should be rotated, but the client)id is not sent to the RS in
>>     OAuth as part of the spec.
>>     If you did rotate the client_id then the AS would track it across
>>     rotations, so it wouldn’t really achieve anything.
>>     One thing we don’t do is allow the client to specify the
>>     client_id, that could allow correlation of the client across
>>     multiple AS and that might be a privacy issue, but we don’t allow it.
>> Thanks, John.  It may be helpful to add in this explanation unless
>> there is some reason not to?
>>     John B.
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>><> <<>>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list


Best regards,