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

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?

Regards,
 Rifaat & Hannes

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:34 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> 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:
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-04.html
>
> 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
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>