Re: [OAUTH-WG] HTTP Message Signing and OAuth PoP

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <> Thu, 29 April 2021 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910463A136C for <>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tmTN_Tgll5wa for <>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FB7E3A1369 for <>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v6so940654ljj.5 for <>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wiqGO1eGVZVs+OgpAOd1SO3ghNGl9m205VW6jijJpWM=; b=fOxnhayOJCQEfyh827HcCoGVwjsgfRbwdAwx3+ZfTXMXV5powCgr9MkvvcHuoMZ3hs 4nSv9h5ul35BsEDgwPdobS1tov98uY9qvz+f2dTynBX3W9Hkj6yp3ujLWzqe76LXspbT rXZyzFXJJWHHMlJ1AXChhHVXuvvGL/8VTNoptZscgzGmDjRC4U/m8NWmEaCKMdoy7MGa 3brOBG6+EeUc94V+nqbwyvwEb89rOT0AB229/F9LxX2HanlT1pGP8d6ofDAq77BT2GML Z+tRvgNd//MK6b0RwPXo24t/IGXmjIO5T13w34MBR1Acqv5gNB5EKBJ5ivXzcc72W6hq r5hw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wiqGO1eGVZVs+OgpAOd1SO3ghNGl9m205VW6jijJpWM=; b=umXq9QtVGV+8KFvS8sIdtKJWiQ2/nEozFCS6wRMPY3qtI2zgeD7s4SwIlfwdtx7Tys vK8gZIHvGWIi1TlzqfKlpf6cPywwjaVGT/yNYNiPb01dyNnntXQR7VfIyEj87GebnbNm 2AZr1HdHco5mA9Yoqd4XUt79ePqOJbmlGSV1aHGi68PuSv61EiY6AcNT3IzRYt72oDLW f7hYK1MQvTfx4BBFi/0ezRrBWe8SijhY8V5WvDLBaKbMkY1szExyy26zO0ATaeMNlhLe 7BDEg11Anpnkfy/cS4m5gxp//ZhVuXN3O2Q8ZFtiIX1g1uLUP3/HDgHkFvZVdBjEVRyZ 0U2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BQTsD/Io11G5RoJ8I9HMcf+bBgW82oHpwsWtjh5++U34Ukfkt NB8QLNOvp7bi8mvXS/6Xicmlz3v2uhyPt/84kQI2925V0zY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/0hJJivtCAv2rw0bW10uRxBmOP8c17v/VHRIYui7CcwTe+nIHwf/TvnH1/QjZB+tOtaLrt8kddYavb8m0pPs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:224:: with SMTP id z4mr823734ljn.350.1619722276652; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 11:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 14:51:05 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Justin Richer <>
Cc: oauth <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ef49fb05c120fa5d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] HTTP Message Signing and OAuth PoP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 18:51:25 -0000

Hi Justin,

Thanks for the update on this,
We would be happy to schedule an interim meeting to discuss this.
Do you have a date in mind?

 Rifaat & Hannes

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:34 AM Justin Richer <> wrote:

> Many of you will remember an old draft that I was the editor of that
> defined OAuth proof of possession methods using HTTP Message Signing. When
> writing that draft I invented my own scheme because there wasn’t an
> existing HTTP message signature standard that was robust enough for our use
> cases. I’m happy to say that the landscape has changed: Annabelle Backman
> and I have been working in the HTTP Working Group on HTTP Message
> Signatures, a general-purpose HTTP signing draft with a lot of power and a
> lot of flexibility. There’s even a relatively straightforward way to map
> JOSE-defined signature algorithms into this (even though, to be clear, it
> is not JOSE-based). The current draft is here:
> This draft has gone through a lot of change in the last few months, but
> we, the editors, believe that it’s at a fairly stable place in terms of the
> core functioning of the protocol now. It’s not finished yet, but we think
> that any changes that come from here will be smaller in scope, more of a
> cleanup and clarification than the deep invasive surgery that has happened
> up until now.
> One of the things about this draft is that, on its own, it is not
> sufficient for a security protocol. By design it needs some additional
> details on where to get key materials, how to negotiate algorithms, what
> fields need to be covered by the signature, etc. I am proposing that we in
> the OAuth WG replace the long-since-expired OAuth PoP working group draft
> with a new document based on HTTP Message Signatures. I believe that this
> document can be relatively short and to the point, given that much of the
> mechanics would be defined in the HTTP draft. If this is something we would
> like to do in the WG, I am volunteering to write the updated draft.
> I also want to be very clear that I still believe that this lives beside
> DPoP, and that DPoP should continue even as we pick this back up. In fact,
> I think that this work would take some pressure off of DPoP and allow it to
> be the streamlined point solution that it was originally intended to be.
> If the chairs would like, I would also be happy to discuss this at an
> interim meeting.
>  — Justin
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list