Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

+1

Sent from my Huawei Mobile

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt
From: John Bradley
To: Nat Sakimura
CC: IETF oauth WG

So I think we need to make the must ignore clearer for the additional paramaters on the authorization endpoint.  

On Mar 30, 2017 17:33, "Nat Sakimura" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Not right now.

As of this writing, a client can still send duplicate parameters in the query but they get ignored by the servers honoring OAuth JAR. So, it is backwards compatible with OpenID Connect in that sense (OpenID Connect sends duplicate manatory RFC6749 parameters as the query parameters as well just to be compliant to RFC6749). Conversely, servers that do not support OAuth JAR will ignore request_uri etc.

On Mar 30, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Mike Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:

Is there a clear statement somewhere along the lines of “parameters (other than “request” or “request_uri”) are only allowed to be in the signed object if a signed object is used”?  That’s the kind of thing I was looking for and didn’t find.

 

                                                       -- Mike

From: John Bradley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:44 PM
To: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>
Cc: Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]>; IETF oauth WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt

 

The intent of the change is to only allow the paramaters to be in the signed object if a signed object is used.  

 

This requires State, nonce etc to be in the JWT.  Only one place to check will hopefully reduce implimentation errors.  

 

This also allows us to remove the caching text as we now have one JWT per request, so caching won't happen.   

 

John B.  

 

 

 

On Mar 30, 2017 4:36 PM, "Mike Jones" <[e-mail]> wrote:

I *believe* the intent is that *all* parameters must be in the request object, but the spec doesn’t actually say that, as far as I can tell.  Or maybe the intent is that parameters must not be duplicated between the query parameters and the request object.

 

One or the other of these statements should be explicitly included in the specification.  Of course, I could have missed the statement I’m asking for in my review, in which case please let me know what I missed.

 

                                                       Thanks,

                                                      -- Mike

 

From: OAuth [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John Bradley
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:00 PM
To: IETF OAUTH <[e-mail]>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt

 

Based on feeback from the IESG we have removed some of the optionality in the draft.

 

It is a shorter read than draft 12.  

 

John B.

 

Sent from https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Mail for Windows 10

 

From: [e-mail]
Sent: March 30, 2017 1:38 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt

 

 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol of the IETF.

 

        Title           : The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: JWT Secured Authorization Request (JAR)

        Authors         : Nat Sakimura

                          John Bradley

           Filename        : draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13.txt

           Pages           : 27

           Date            : 2017-03-30

 

Abstract:

   The authorization request in OAuth 2.0 described in RFC 6749 utilizes

   query parameter serialization, which means that Authorization Request

   parameters are encoded in the URI of the request and sent through

  user agents such as web browsers.  While it is easy to implement, it

   means that (a) the communication through the user agents are not

   integrity protected and thus the parameters can be tainted, and (b)

   the source of the communication is not authenticated.  Because of

   these weaknesses, several attacks to the protocol have now been put

   forward.

 

   This document introduces the ability to send request parameters in a

   JSON Web Token (JWT) instead, which allows the request to be signed

   with JSON Web Signature (JWS) and/or encrypted with JSON Web

   Encryption (JWE) so that the integrity, source authentication and

   confidentiality property of the Authorization Request is attained.

   The request can be sent by value or by reference.

 

 

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq/

 

There are also htmlized versions available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13

 

A diff from the previous version is available at:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-13

 

 

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission

until the htmlized version and diff are available at http://tools.ietf.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">tools.ietf.org.

 

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

 

_______________________________________________

OAuth mailing list

[e-mail]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth