Re: [GNAP] User consent

Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com> Mon, 17 August 2020 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AD63A13EA for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 OURfVFfu11tS for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (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 1FC5C3A13F1 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id t15so16804510iob.3 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zTzVpKbjOXbcErgsvLKzsjll+VttJ8Cx8l1r3QYN5q0=; b=OPlAL1SIrFKe5vNg9+PjDpzZSU0zjsuGOiz2JUQFGXuBtn4WdrVswxo9leWm461D+i MbWXpqtRh5aAoY3zucYDclqQkvu6YPQYyU5xKR92x+PYekwNrJE6rJF1n6k5nZ3rUvNc k9fcgW2+tjsR14ZXOm/pnohNPTA1lpwEBmpi1e0bdGPCRiDrbQ+M1ZlJrgaHbZsRck9b SPYE/WqzCaaEkMGn4ia7Dau6nPVBNKmRziqrY8j5stNzXk1lL5LQZTv1tz38Bpp4Hj28 b+0zdk9ztBjKK5ss+k2NLcJ8/JoF/j/Mii2UyHom6xnvsULZWOu//LeeNGVzkDpWA0ZS DXWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zTzVpKbjOXbcErgsvLKzsjll+VttJ8Cx8l1r3QYN5q0=; b=BBqJwVtQHirKtTxfnC7YJ2RqCADoFgraRqT/saOizguHvAC+uI6ZmP2BGJlyQ8VjDl Xxz/LQauAlgPpR1K3xaOqXLfCyJVObQC6rV1GR4JTUY2LShnyrWSNGsLIoCbNWz4aQZ6 ZTHsWL7knH0FeLpuQyVU/oMTjqHbTGI0oj2FtX1LxFvO8vTco329RvVZdxCF0gUaK0hN fLwy3h8xIytKCwDLoAMbWJsA3ZLysXYbQAebQcoGQTuNpPNLSMxVb2rDCRtw6xi/ZswN aQnY2Kbdcw1D2SrDPo7GaSqYya2rsDVKeRV/Pf3wG44dWpjwmGU6C+ay8eEmZdaY+Mt1 Z3cw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530x/SWVJF+NimjArIOmdvdDpoDB+w7vUaNRQZwYPga9R9OZXmp7 PRn11zkU8poH+cGAEMHgbHA7b8EAokIfPihcBSQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyFyGz9V+c9bLZmDBXmZFgPjc9N7EueJd6vN5nQDY8KfP2OQGB0Lpf3KKth1si2OKGp5/VRg6pd6qlqZPv9Fss=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e31a:: with SMTP id u26mr11078284ioc.162.1597651507265; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <c5f40413-93b8-2e8c-0a3e-14a07cd27ad0@free.fr> <ECF217AE-1D67-4EAE-AE51-531F6EE6E222@mit.edu> <583aedda-ae41-1f3e-6623-671f2197614c@free.fr> <20200804185313.GT92412@kduck.mit.edu> <CAJot-L2hykst2vFxcwLn_auDMMaw7psVwsKFHKhQp9DA49ydWg@mail.gmail.com> <A4DC7B4E-FD34-454F-9396-B971CF5D57A4@mit.edu> <CAD9ie-tKEp+PV3F4p84Zbu7Kd1dQutawnzHybt8cmg-XniLYLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW4vyN4ifCXmk1XAyGK4cEfY1jTp6+AWOL-uNjEpVcp0Ku0UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-ugjNevqKAPWFjKqGMMpCvX6yyC=M4bs9naenJf-k9uqg@mail.gmail.com> <1b06d5849bf941d69376d1d7efbc4950@oc11expo18.exchange.mit.edu> <CAK2Cwb5ZVpTzOtQBGcw5zgteGe5EGR9sMBxWVrQ2mZP7-tc-kg@mail.gmail.com> <49B10559-0FB2-4B80-81C6-6F25F76F2ED8@mit.edu> <CAD9ie-vrFmSMY6bC4BqtpVn9i6MeFnghOXaHfdhXvOr59u1rzg@mail.gmail.com> <a3e44960-3e2f-03cf-08e7-412525443ff5@free.fr> <CAD9ie-v_YFufNmgfHSx0sr9kmMTjrOa--acic2UAg9LfpLNssQ@mail.gmail.com> <58369087-2bfa-152a-ea8d-22f32424aefb@free.fr> <CAD9ie-uAxABrrvKig7+Xj3c6NKjCPPoJ2vfWh7tMyMW+160CTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD9ie-uAxABrrvKig7+Xj3c6NKjCPPoJ2vfWh7tMyMW+160CTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 10:04:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM8feuR=aE0BGGGTaKAS0qXF+j2uXSf_CnwM7rxNT5CdLfpdKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Cc: Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr>, "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090c51205ad0e3a03"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/gcAsfqRT_SgJhczzId5mfytdolE>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] User consent
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:05:11 -0000

Hi,

They're not the same thing for me either. AND/OR conditions are logical
operators, but it's the responsibility of the UI to display them however
they wish.

We still can discuss good practices of how the UI may look like (and which
can be useful for reference implementations), but it's only informative in
my opinion.
An example of similar discussions:
https://github.com/WICG/WebID/blob/master/design.md

Fabien

On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 10:28 PM Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis, a mathematical expression is not a user experience.
>
> While we may be able to standardize the result of a user experience, that
> is not the same thing.
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 3:14 AM Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> This is a new thread built from "Revisiting the photo sharing example (a
>> driving use case for the creation of OAuth)"
>>
>> Hi Dick,
>>
>> I don't see how we can technically standardize a user experience, and it
>> is not clear why a standard would be needed for interoperability.
>>
>> I already wrote a proposal and made it available to the mailing list.
>>
>> An access will be granted by a RS based on an mathematical expression
>> which is formed using some combination of AND and OR conditions.
>>
>> Examples of combinations:
>>
>> *condition 1* AND
>> *condition 2 condition 1* OR *condition 2*
>> (*condition 1* AND *condition 2)* OR
>> *condition 3 (condition 1* OR *condition 2)* AND *condition 3*
>>
>> The following notation is being used for the *conditions*:
>>
>> *condition x* = { AS identifier + set of attributes types }
>>
>> Each RS internally constructs an *authorization table* with the
>> following content:
>>
>> 1°  For the "authentication" operation: either FIDO U2F or a
>> mathematical expression using conditions;
>>
>> 2°  For any other operation: a mathematical expression using conditions.
>>
>> Given the operation selected by the client, the RS returns the
>> appropriate mathematical expression and only the associated conditions
>> used in that mathematical expression. The User may then decide whether
>> they are appropriate to him or not.
>>
>>  In many jurisdictions there are regulations regarding what information
>> needs to be conveyed to a user, and potentially a consent requirement,
>> for example a site explaining its use of cookies -- but I don't see how
>> IETF would play a role in that.
>>
>> On a related note, the browsers attempted to standardize the username /
>> password prompt, and that has been rejected by pretty much every site.
>> The only site I've visited in the last decade that has used the browsers'
>> built in username / password prompt was the W3C site -- and it was a
>> frustrating
>> experience since there was no button for account recovery -- it would
>> just keep popping up.
>>
>> What I am proposing is unrelated to the two above cases you mention.
>>
>> Denis
>>
>>
>>
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:29 AM Denis <denis.ietf@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Dick,
>>>
>>> I think Tom's objection, and I agree with it, is that humans don't
>>> interact in bits and bytes.
>>>
>>> I think it is useful to separate human interactions with software from
>>> software interactions with software.
>>> The latter we can standardize, the former we can call out as part of the
>>> overall process, but it is not something
>>> that is testable or required for interop, so I would argue human to
>>> software interactions are NOT part of the protocol.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  A set of a choices should be presented by the RS to the
>>> Client in a standardized way. The choices made by the user
>>> should be locally recorded by the Client, hence the RS does not need to
>>> be informed of these choices. The RS will only know
>>> the end result of these choices when/if it gets back one or more access
>>> tokens.
>>>
>>> Human to software interactions should be part of the protocol.
>>>
>>> RS to Client: a set of choices
>>>
>>> Client to RS: Done (choices have been done by the user).
>>>
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ᐧ
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:11 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It’s a role fulfilled by a person, so I’m not sure where the objection
>>>> you’re raising comes from.
>>>>
>>>> Also, whatever roles we define here, whether software or human-ware,
>>>> they need to be related to the protocol.
>>>>
>>>>  — Justin
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 13, 2020, at 10:59 AM, Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I strong object to the objectification of human users. It is way past
>>>> time that the IETF becaume user oriented instead of web service oriented.
>>>> users are human in my language.
>>>> Peace ..tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 4:38 PM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If defined as the party operating the client software, then the user
>>>>> is a role. I believe this is more accurate and inclusive than the
>>>>> definition you have proposed with the user as an entity.
>>>>>
>>>>>  - Justin
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Dick Hardt [dick.hardt@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 6:21 PM
>>>>> To: Francis Pouatcha
>>>>> Cc: Justin Richer; Denis; Benjamin James Kaduk; txauth@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [GNAP] [Txauth] Revisiting the photo sharing example (a
>>>>> driving use case for the creation of OAuth)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Francis
>>>>>
>>>>> The user is an entity, not a role in the protocol in how I am defining
>>>>> roles, so steps (1) and (7) are confusing to me on what is happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also think that (2) could be an extension to GNAP, rather than part
>>>>> of the core protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:04 PM Francis Pouatcha <fpo@adorsys.de
>>>>> <mailto:fpo@adorsys.de>> wrote:
>>>>> In this context, I suggest we pick some words to work with, and
>>>>> sharpen them as we move on, discover and map new use cases to the protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this diagram from the original thread (
>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/IaSLC_72_KimjOBJqdmQY-JOGNw/),
>>>>> I replaced the words:
>>>>>
>>>>> +-----------+      +--------------+  +----+  +----+
>>>>> +---------------------+
>>>>> | Requestor |      | Orchestrator |  |    |  | GS |  | Resource
>>>>> Controller |
>>>>> |   was     |      |     was      |  | RS |  | or |  |         was
>>>>>      |
>>>>> |  User     |      |   Client     |  |    |  | AS |  |    Resource
>>>>> Owner   |
>>>>> +-----------+      +--------------+  +----+  +----+
>>>>> +---------------------+
>>>>>   |(1) ServiceRequest     |            |       |                |
>>>>>   |---------------------->|            |       |                |
>>>>>   |                       |(2) ServiceIntent:AuthZChallenge     |
>>>>>   |                       |<---------->|       |                |
>>>>>   |                       |            |       |                |
>>>>>   |                       |(3) AuthZRequest(AuthZChallenge)     |
>>>>>   |                       |------------------->|                |
>>>>>   |                       |            |       |(4)
>>>>> ConsentRequest:Grant
>>>>>   |                       |            |       |<-------------->|
>>>>>   |                       |(5) GrantAccess(AuthZ)               |
>>>>>   |                       |<-------------------|                |
>>>>>   |                       |            |       |                |
>>>>>   |                       |(6) ServiceRequest(AuthZ):ServiceResponse
>>>>>   |                       |<---------->|       |                |
>>>>>   |(7) ServiceResponse    |            |       |                |
>>>>>   |<----------------------|            |       |                |
>>>>>   +                       +            +       +                +
>>>>>
>>>>> The purpose of the GNAP protocol is to help negotiate access to a
>>>>> protected resource. It starts with a requestor delegating activity to an
>>>>> orchestrator. These are all roles, no entities. Let focus on mapping the
>>>>> use cases to the protocol roles and interactions so wwe can discover what
>>>>> is missing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems cumbersome to use it in discussions as it is impossible to
>>>>> give the word "Client" a clear definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can mention in the final document, that the "Orchestrator" (or
>>>>> whatever word we finally use) plays the same role as the "Client" in oAuth2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>> /Francis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:05 PM Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> I agree with Justin. Redefining well used terms will lead to
>>>>> significant confusion. If we have a different role than what we have had in
>>>>> the past, then that role should have a name not being used already in OAuth
>>>>> or OIDC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given what we have learned, and my own experience explaining what a
>>>>> Client is, and is not, improving the definition for Client could prove
>>>>> useful. I am not suggesting the term be redefined, but clarified.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, clarifying that a Client is a role an entity plays in the
>>>>> protocol, and that the same entity may play other roles at other times, or
>>>>> some other language to help differentiate between "role" and "entity".
>>>>>
>>>>> /Dick
>>>>> [
>>>>> https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=e48e13f4-2306-4d7c-8654-d50e00dbac3a]ᐧ
>>>>> <https://mailfoogae.appspot.com/t?sender=aZGljay5oYXJkdEBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&type=zerocontent&guid=e48e13f4-2306-4d7c-8654-d50e00dbac3a]%E1%90%A7>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:20 AM Justin Richer <jricher@mit..edu<mailto:
>>>>> jricher@mit.edu>> wrote:
>>>>> I’m in favor of coming up with a new term that’s a better fit, but I’m
>>>>> not really in favor of taking an existing term and applying a completely
>>>>> new definition to it. In other words, I would sooner stop using “client”
>>>>> and come up with a new, more specific and accurate term for the role than
>>>>> to define “client” as meaning something completely different. We did this
>>>>> in going from OAuth 1 to OAuth 2 already, moving from the
>>>>> even-more-confusing “consumer” to “client”, but OAuth 2 doesn’t use the
>>>>> term “consumer” at all, nor does it use “server” on its own but instead
>>>>> always qualifies it with “Authorization Server” and “Resource Server”.
>>>>>
>>>>> GNAP can do something similar, in my opinion. But what we can’t do is
>>>>> ignore the fact that GNAP is going to be coming up in a world that is
>>>>> already permeated  by OAuth 2 and its terminology. We don’t have a blank
>>>>> slate to work with, but neither are we bound to use the same terms and
>>>>> constructs as before. It’s going to be a delicate balance!
>>>>>
>>>>>  — Justin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 4, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Warren Parad <wparad@rhosys.ch<mailtomailto:
>>>>> wparad@rhosys.ch>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that is fundamentally part of the question:
>>>>> We are clear that we are producing a protocol that is
>>>>> conceptually (if not more strongly) related to OAuth 2.0, and reusing
>>>>> terms
>>>>> from OAuth 2.0 but with different definitions may lead to unnecessary
>>>>> confusion
>>>>>
>>>>> If we say that this document assumes OAuth2.0 terminology, then we
>>>>> should not change the meanings of any definition. If we are saying this
>>>>> supersedes or replaces what OAuth 2.0 creates, then we should pick the best
>>>>> word for the job and ignore conflicting meanings from OAuth 2.0. I have a
>>>>> lot of first hand experience of industries "ruining words", and attempting
>>>>> to side-step the problem rather than redefining the word just confuses
>>>>> everyone as everyone forgets the original meaning as new documents come
>>>>> out, but the confusion with the use of a non-obvious word continues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Food for thought.
>>>>> - Warren
>>>>>
>>>>> [
>>>>> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/DNiDx1QGIrSqMPKDN1oKevxYuyVRXsqhXdfZOsW56Rf2A74mUKbAPtrJSNw4qynkSjoltWkPYdBhaZJg1BO45YOc1xs6r9KJ1fYsNHogY-nh6hjuIm9GCeBRRzrSc8kWcUSNtuA
>>>>> ]
>>>>>
>>>>> Warren Parad
>>>>> Founder, CTO
>>>>>
>>>>> Secure your user data and complete your authorization architecture.
>>>>> Implement Authress<https://bit..ly/37SSO1p>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:53 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu<mailtomailto:
>>>>> kaduk@mit.edu>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Denis,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 11:31:34AM +0200, Denis wrote:
>>>>> > Hi Justin,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Since you replied in parallel, I will make a response similar to the
>>>>> one
>>>>> > I sent to Dick.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Hi Denis,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > I think there’s still a problem with the terminology in use here.
>>>>> What
>>>>> > > you describe as RS2, which might in fact be an RS unto itself, is a
>>>>> > > “Client” in OAuth parlance because it is /a client of RS1/. What
>>>>> you
>>>>> > > call a “client” has no analogue in the OAuth world, but it is not
>>>>> at
>>>>> > > all the same as an OAuth client. I appreciate your mapping of the
>>>>> > > entities below, but it makes it difficult to hold a discussion if
>>>>> we
>>>>> > > aren’t using the same terms.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > The good news is that this isn’t OAuth, and as a new WG we can
>>>>> define
>>>>> > > our own terms. The bad news is that this is really hard to do.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > In GNAP, we shouldn’t just re-use existing terms with new
>>>>> definitions,
>>>>> > > but we’ve got a chance to be more precise with how we define
>>>>> things.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In the ISO context, each document must define its own terminology.
>>>>> The
>>>>> > boiler plate for RFCs does not mandate a terminology or definitions
>>>>> section
>>>>> > but does not prevent it either. The vocabulary is limited and as
>>>>> long as
>>>>> > we clearly define what our terms are meaning, we can re-use a term
>>>>> already
>>>>> > used in another RFC. This is also the ISO approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because we can do something does not necessarily mean that it is a
>>>>> good idea to do so.  We are clear that we are producing a protocol
>>>>> that is
>>>>> conceptually (if not more strongly) related to OAuth 2.0, and reusing
>>>>> terms
>>>>> from OAuth 2.0 but with different definitions may lead to unnecessary
>>>>> confusion.  If I understand correctly, a similar reasoning prompted
>>>>> Dick to
>>>>> use the term "GS" in XAuth, picking a name that was not already used in
>>>>> OAuth 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Ben
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Txauth mailing list
>>>>> Txauth@ietf.org<mailto:Txauth@ietf.org>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>>> --
>>>>> Txauth mailing list
>>>>> Txauth@ietf.org<mailto:Txauth@ietf.org>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> TXAuth mailing list
>>>>> TXAuth@ietf.org<mailto:TXAuth@ietf.org>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>>> --
>>>>> TXAuth mailing list
>>>>> TXAuth@ietf.org<mailto:TXAuth@ietf.org>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Francis Pouatcha
>>>>> Co-Founder and Technical Lead
>>>>> adorsys GmbH & Co. KG
>>>>> https://adorsys-platform.de/solutions/
>>>>> --
>>>>> TXAuth mailing list
>>>>> TXAuth@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> TXAuth mailing list
>>> TXAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>>
>>
>> --
> TXAuth mailing list
> TXAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>