Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Adoption - OAuth Proof of Possession Tokens with HTTP Message Signature

[Justin Richer <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the clarification, though I certainly disagree with your conclusion.

If you have additional outstanding concerns with the HTTP Sig document, Annabelle and I would welcome your feedback and engagement in HTTP to ensure those are addressed. :)

Thanks,
 — Justin

> On Oct 6, 2021, at 5:24 PM, Dick Hardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I meant it is not yet adopted as an RFC. 
> 
> To be clear, I think you are doing great work on the HTTP Sig doc, and a number of concerns I have with HTTP signing have been addressed => I just think that doing work in the OAuth WG on a moving and unproven draft in the HTTP WG is not a good use of resources in the OAuth WG at this time.
> 
> 
> ᐧ
> 
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:20 PM Justin Richer <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > HTTP Sig looks very promising, but it has not been adopted as a draft
> 
> Just to be clear, the HTTP Sig draft is an official adopted document of the HTTP Working Group since about a year ago. I would not have suggested we depend on it for a document within this WG otherwise.
> 
>  — Justin
> 
>> On Oct 6, 2021, at 5:08 PM, Dick Hardt <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> I am not supportive of adoption of this document at this time. 
>> 
>> I am supportive of the concepts in the document. Building upon existing, widely used, proven security mechanisms gives us better security.
>> 
>> HTTP Sig looks very promising, but it has not been adopted as a draft, and as far as I know, it is not widely deployed.
>> 
>> We should wait to do work on extending HTTP Sig for OAuth until it has stabilized and proven itself in the field. We have more than enough work to do in the WG now, and having yet-another PoP mechanism is more likely to confuse the community at this time.
>> 
>> An argument to adopt the draft would be to ensure HTTP Sig can be used in OAuth.
>> Given Justin and Annabelle are also part of the OAuth community, I'm sure they will be considering how HTTP Sig can apply to OAuth, so the overlap is serving us already.
>> 
>> /Dick
>> 
>> 
>> ᐧ
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:04 PM Aaron Parecki <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> I support adoption of this document.
>> 
>> - Aaron
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:02 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> As a followup on the interim meeting today, this is a call for adoption for the OAuth Proof of Possession Tokens with HTTP Message Signature draft as a WG document:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-httpsig/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-httpsig/>
>> 
>> Please, provide your feedback on the mailing list by October 20th.
>> 
>> Regards,
>>  Rifaat & Hannes
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>