Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03.txt
Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com> Fri, 04 August 2017 19:18 UTC
Return-Path: <vladimir@connect2id.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0CB132012 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AIsAfgq2nCRg for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa06-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B44A131FFA for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.101] ([78.130.190.73]) by :SMTPAUTH: with SMTP id di6Idb2Y2PMtZdi6JdStmj; Fri, 04 Aug 2017 12:17:35 -0700
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
References: <150126635076.25225.3854025136006448469@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+k3eCThoxNM394K=it4vCL2k-BW68Lg73eTN=4Z3LrupbXtVw@mail.gmail.com> <b3b27355-11fc-21c9-cfad-f6fb0571ed02@connect2id.com> <CA+k3eCR+YuVivqkUkdc+n4PFfQXPGwztC3PNSZnEe7Tds77xqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCRE9B8M4bAX0m5hY1t9Uvvz292Q5WYmSZjF7h_FkCJTKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com>
Organization: Connect2id Ltd.
Message-ID: <44d04086-4817-a96b-c060-fb0011dc4ad9@connect2id.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 22:17:34 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+k3eCRE9B8M4bAX0m5hY1t9Uvvz292Q5WYmSZjF7h_FkCJTKw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms060608040006060505070809"
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfDlyAD+BscWT4XIhnEjj/4AGCjWGrDqGoyMiFZOefa0L84iFtWZSyycK5tkIteqQ8hj28n9CxA4H39KTQAL4SGvurFUtRmkkYCN6dXkJahjCajcfIDtw YUzCgnoKVLIQPaSsei3wGjmtI5OBiD9zZ5fuMPDCxGWbZ4WyR8j+9o02omom7Ung4F/7XWl3em6p41/I2/e3BLLyMExJj6D1TRE=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/slPfmW0f5AZRusFlBE8_NxJVlYI>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 19:18:10 -0000
What are the potential uses of the x5c parameter? Vladimir On 04/08/17 21:13, Brian Campbell wrote: > Just wanted to note that, in an off-list exchange, John has pushed back on > the idea to potentially drop mention of using x5c. > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the review, Vladimir. >> >> The text about which you have questions was written by Torsten (credit or >> blame where it's due!) but I believe he's out of the office for a bit so >> I'll try and answer. >> >> Your 1st question: >> I've had the same thought regarding the public key method and using the >> JWK x5c parameter. A JWK already has the public key, which is sufficient >> for comparison in the public key method. So x5c is just superfluous here. I >> believe that's a change that the next revision should have and will look to >> make it unless someone wants to make a strong case for needing x5c. >> >> Your 2nd question: >> I also found the sentence, "When used in conjunction with a trusted X.509 >> certificate source, it also allows the client to rotate its X.509 >> certificates without the need to change its respective authentication data >> at the authorization server." somewhat difficult to understand when I first >> read it. The intended meaning relies on content earlier in the same >> paragraph that says, "As pre-requisite, the client registers a X.509 >> certificate or *a trusted source for its X.509 certificates (jwks uri as >> defined in [RFC7591])* with the authorization server." Basically what >> it's trying to say is that when a client is registered or configured with a >> jwks_uri, then client key rotation can be done without needing to >> explicitly update the client config/registration with the AS. Does that >> explain it? I believe the text could be more straightforward and will >> endeavor to make it more clear in the next draft update. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov < >> vladimir@connect2id.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks everyone for the update! Having a clear distinction between the >>> PKIX vs public key bound methods will help interop, implementers' job, and >>> it also appears good for security. >>> >>> Questions: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-mtls- >>> 03#section-2.3 >>> >>> where the X.509 certificates are represented using the "x5c" parameter from [RFC7517 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7517>] >>> >>> For the public key method, is it really necessary for the client to >>> include its certificate in the JWK x5c parameter? This will make >>> implementation harder for developers, and I'm not sure it adds anything in >>> terms of security. Registering the public key parameters seems sufficient >>> to me. >>> >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-mtls- >>> 03#section-2.1 >>> >>> When used in conjunction with a trusted X.509 certificate source, it also allows the client to rotate its X.509 certificates without the need to change its respective authentication data at the authorization server. >>> >>> I don't understand this - "in conjunction with a trusted X.509 >>> certificate source" >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Vladimir >>> >>> On 28/07/17 21:33, Brian Campbell wrote: >>> >>> A new draft of "Mutual TLS Profile for OAuth 2.0" has been published with >>> the changes listed below based on comments and dissuasion in Prague. >>> >>> draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03> >>> >>> >>> o Introduced metadata and client registration parameter to publish >>> and request support for mutual TLS sender constrained access >>> tokens >>> o Added description of two methods of binding the cert and client, >>> PKI and Public Key. >>> o Indicated that the "tls_client_auth" authentication method is for >>> the PKI method and introduced "pub_key_tls_client_auth" for the >>> Public Key method >>> o Added implementation considerations, mainly regarding TLS stack >>> configuration and trust chain validation, as well as how to to do >>> binding of access tokens to a TLS client certificate for public >>> clients, and considerations around certificate bound access tokens >>> o Added new section to security considerations on cert spoofing >>> o Add text suggesting that a new cnf member be defined in the >>> future, if hash function(s) other than SHA-256 need to be used for >>> certificate thumbprints >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> <internet-drafts@ietf.org> >>> Date: Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:25 PM >>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03.txt >>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org >>> >>> >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol WG of the IETF. >>> >>> Title : Mutual TLS Profile for OAuth 2.0 >>> Authors : Brian Campbell >>> John Bradley >>> Nat Sakimura >>> Torsten Lodderstedt >>> Filename : draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03.txt >>> Pages : 17 >>> Date : 2017-07-28 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This document describes Transport Layer Security (TLS) mutual >>> authentication using X.509 certificates as a mechanism for OAuth >>> client authentication to the token endpoint as well as for >>> certificate bound sender constrained access tokens. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-mtls/ >>> >>> There are also htmlized versions available at:https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing listOAuth@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>>
- [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-03.t… internet-drafts
- [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-… Torsten Lodderstedt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-… Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… John Bradley
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… Vladimir Dzhuvinov
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… Salz, Rich
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-… Vladimir Dzhuvinov