Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of Draft-ietf-dyn-reg

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 24 February 2015 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700AF1A0070 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:07:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 1lMk7aBgw-f3 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:07:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30F6C1A9069 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:07:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lbiz11 with SMTP id z11so190858lbi.5 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:07:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=d/HRCRdAd5ErcHaa7C/SnAFTSH2mrinBsp5WPbz00jE=; b=ZbcDE+VPUz5y8FnGyHMEvUqyICdKmN9mO5D2DEvOdKe5OuthzPVfqE2M1/OkrZSuDC IUdIc8ySspbqw7fd4Jn0MqztH8ilgyskqP4nhOGCQ+vBjzUbiicZJuRdK8BF3YjaI2V5 gPtXLV19HiXZsZq39zhOEC/YiKUbdqZIRCg+jJhwTHxUxXobePYLrMI79HdY7Qpw5zu9 m7mnp6PXGgcx4X6aYtaZjqkxy3OZpXWMsM0r6nz/EfBtoapS6FfiBezJ2Ewvl9Ay+d6Y DZefTxqCNKD/Pck/BaQCgLzFm+gsLz559WMh0VUGc9CsMvaQCivCG0ENkCOanD4R1nYs UvRA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.97.106 with SMTP id dz10mr311903lbb.4.1424819264531; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:07:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.167.101 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:07:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54E4D2A5.5030705@gmx.net>
References: <CAHbuEH587HcqaqTMrmLPXQimRAaS2j1Uv+BC-0UHeyBwC8+3Uw@mail.gmail.com> <54DC2CB1.8090400@mit.edu> <D3644538-EF35-476B-8158-270C8FC21647@oracle.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943A222C933@TK5EX14MBXC290.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAHbuEH5NUcQ5Q30yj80OSBe4epaarpkFroyM_Yfp5-thkMJBgA@mail.gmail.com> <1766F429-C82D-471D-BCE9-F8E5F234CE3C@ve7jtb.com> <CAHbuEH4Pa6N5YMP=5f0W24nPsQ8aGPqL8sHOaspE5A1K8Gui4Q@mail.gmail.com> <DC682515-BCFD-42B8-9765-BD8EF32DDBD2@mit.edu> <54E4D2A5.5030705@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:07:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH79CvMDtzmi7C3K+K=zAKD+pQ_k_qb8_ySYAZJucuO18w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11345b1221b1b4050fdd96d6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/zHWS25NPGhfoIXUr_zk11PjdgSg>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of Draft-ietf-dyn-reg
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:07:48 -0000

Hello,

Thanks for updating the draft.  I just want to confirm that Hannes is okay
with the updated definitions and updates the shepherd report to reflect
that.

This is getting held up a bit while we sort through copyright of text from
UMA and OpenID.  The text from UMA went into an IETF draft, so that should
be the reference as it clears up any possible issues as they provided that
text in an IETF draft.

The chairs will be helping to sort out the requirements with OpenID, per
our discussions the IETF trustees.  I'm not sure how long this will take,
but wanted to provide a status so no one thought this had been dropped.

Thanks.

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <
hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi Justin, Hi John,
>
> I believe that provisioning a client with a unique id (which is what a
> client id/client secret is) allows some form of linkability. While it
> may be possible to associate the client to a specific user I could very
> well imagine that the correlation between activities from a user and
> those from the client (particularly when the client is running on the
> user's device) is quite possible.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> On 02/18/2015 06:37 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
> > I’ll incorporate this feedback into another draft, to be posted by the
> > end of the week. Thanks everyone!
> >
> >  — Justin
> >
> >> On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
> >> <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:07 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com
> >> <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     snip
> >>>     On Feb 18, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
> >>>     <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com
> >>>     <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>         > The client_id *could* be short lived, but they usually
> aren't. I don't see any particular logging or tracking concerns using a
> dynamic OAuth client above using any other piece of software, ever. As
> such, I don't think it requires special calling out here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     Help me understand why there should not be text that shows this
> >>>     is not an issue or please propose some text.  This is bound to
> >>>     come up in IESG reviews if not addressed up front.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>     The client_id is used to communicate to the Authorization server
> >>     to get a code or refresh token.  Those tokens uniquely identify
> >>     the user from a privacy perspective.
> >>     It is the access tokens that are sent to the RS and those can and
> >>     should be rotated, but the client)id is not sent to the RS in
> >>     OAuth as part of the spec.
> >>
> >>     If you did rotate the client_id then the AS would track it across
> >>     rotations, so it wouldn’t really achieve anything.
> >>
> >>     One thing we don’t do is allow the client to specify the
> >>     client_id, that could allow correlation of the client across
> >>     multiple AS and that might be a privacy issue, but we don’t allow
> it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks, John.  It may be helpful to add in this explanation unless
> >> there is some reason not to?
> >>
> >>
> >>     John B.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Kathleen
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen