[secdir] Re: Secdir ietf last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-17

[Shawn Emery <[e-mail]>]

Looks good.  Thank you for the update.

On 4/18/25 2:42 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> Thanks Shawn, I appreciate the review and the acknowledgement of the 
> little touch of humor :)
>
> This PR addresses the editorial comments 
> https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt/pull/565
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 12:00 AM Shawn Emery via Datatracker 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Document: draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt
>     Title: Selective Disclosure for JWTs (SD-JWT)
>     Reviewer: Shawn Emery
>     Review result: Has Nits
>
>     I have reviewed this document as part of the security
>     directorate's ongoing
>     effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 
>     These
>     comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
>     area directors.
>      Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
>     like any other
>     last call comments.
>
>     This standards track draft specifies a mechanism for disclosing
>     targeted claims
>     in a JSON Web Token (JWT).
>
>     This security considerations section does exist and provides
>     examples of the
>     consequences of a naive Verifier in relation to the security and
>     correctness of
>     the protocol.  The section continues with a discussion on salt
>     generation and
>     hash algorithm selection.  Despite specifying SHA-256 as the
>     default hash
>     algorithm, the protocol does not appear to be susceptible to
>     length extension
>     attacks because the Issuer signs the SD-JWT, which includes each
>     of the
>     Disclosure hashes.  The security implications of the optional key
>     binding
>     feature (Holder proves authenticity of SDs to Verifier) are also
>     discussed.
>     Lastly, the section covers disclosing claim names, validity claims,
>     verification key life-cycle, credential forwarding, SD-JWT*
>     integrity, and type
>     attacks.  I believe that this section provides sufficient coverage
>     for the
>     various types of attacks and procedures to mitigate against such
>     attacks.
>
>     The authors have also included a privacy section, which includes
>     subsections on
>     unlinkability, SD-JWT confidentiality in transit and at rest,
>     usage of digest
>     decoys, and considerations of identifying Issuers.  The privacy
>     section appears
>     to be comprehensive and the outlined procedures to protect privacy
>     seems to be
>     adequate.
>
>     General Comments:
>
>     Thank you for including examples in each of the pertinent sections
>     of the draft.
>
>     Editorial Comments:
>
>     s/ecosystem/operating environment/
>
>     for those who celebrate ;)
>
>
>
>
> /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./