Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for adoption - SD-JWT

[David Chadwick <[e-mail]>]

On 01/08/2022 11:55, Neil Madden wrote:

I agree with many of these points that Jaimandeep Singh raises. 

It would be good to know exactly what the intended use-cases within OAuth are. In particular, in OAuth it’s normally the case that the client is relatively untrusted and a privacy goal is to avoid revealing information/PII to the client unnecessarily. In SD-JWT it seems that this is turned on its head somewhat and we trust the client (holder) with everything and instead want to keep some information private from the resource servers?

I think there are also some questions about exactly which claims can be selectively disclosed - e.g., it would be a very bad idea to allow security constraints like “exp”, “aud” or “cnf” to be selectively (not) disclosed. But the problem is that the set of security constraints is not fixed in any way, and new ones may be added by future specs or application-specific ones. So the issuer will need to be careful not to allow such constraints to be selectively disclosed.

Ultimately, I just don’t find this idea of fine-grained pick ’n’ mix selective disclosure of individual claims to be very compelling compared to the much simpler solution of just issuing multiple JWTs in the first place (with appropriate subsets of claims in them).

+1. This is exactly what we do

David

— Neil

On 29 Jul 2022, at 03:15, Jaimandeep Singh <jaimandeep.phdcs21=[e-mail]> wrote:

Dear All,

1. At the outset I must compliment  Daniel Fett and Kristina Yasudafor and all the contributors for the wonderful work done on SD-JWT.

2. However, in my opinion there is no clear motivation for using SD-JWT in the present oAuth 2.0/2.1 ecosystem. We already have JWS and JWE which more or less satisfy the requirements.

3. The focus and time of the WG-OAUTH should be more aligned to the work directly impacting the improvements or BCP in the oAuth 2.0/2.1 specs.

4. WG-JWP (JSON Web Proofs) may be a more suitable place for the adoption of SD-JWT as they are working on a similar set of problems. They are actively seeking participation in the area of SD-JWT.

5. In view of above I am presently not in favour of its adoption in WG-OAUTH. 

Regards

Jaimandeep Singh

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 6:43 AM Brian Campbell <bcampbell=[e-mail]> wrote:

I support adoption.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 8:17 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]> wrote:

All,

This is a call for adoption for the SD-JWT document

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fett-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt/" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fett-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt/

Please, provide your feedback on the mailing list by August 12th.

Regards,

 Rifaat & Hannes

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth" rel="noreferrer noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth