IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Txauth] Additional implementation

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sun, 05 July 2020 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 D09BD3A0BAC for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 15:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 xALDWPbbaunC for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 15:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8A73A0BAA for <txauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 15:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 065MrhCE000655 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 5 Jul 2020 18:53:45 -0400
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 15:53:43 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Cc: Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>, txauth@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200705225343.GQ16335@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <CAM8feuRA1VfPs6bdrGgssBeBNe4wPySHjKcjiP6HexKMUff4DQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-t7Lzt8S09YKPqwhc__7fKU6XpsyL1m8CGYUqfQwj8+ww@mail.gmail.com> <CAM8feuQK7HnKWd4TuusKy6z5q0K8V1+fO7xdqnLwOckThgtfNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM8feuT5VO3w-PJWX-SWL0tdoCH4TfzfTnabD5kNLfZ=T8nAZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-vUGGRcsv2mC6OD=p2P-jRLbpWo1dOfq3AVYc9gU1S8hA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM8feuRc_arjH-mKyXo+4k_PzRZ0Pq83fkNsN3_YM0mZ8VmmMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD9ie-un7KEtreop+CYgkds5R89Xc26qCxt5Zd9zHRzY9UEH5Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD9ie-un7KEtreop+CYgkds5R89Xc26qCxt5Zd9zHRzY9UEH5Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/p-JW-jOd6fHM2BzA78PSxEo-s2o>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Additional implementation
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: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 22:53:51 -0000

Hi Dick, Fabien,

Just to clarify on one point, and check whether I'm confused:

On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 06:32:44PM -0700, Dick Hardt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 1:19 AM Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:34 PM Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:47 AM Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> 
> >
> >> Just like OAuth 2.0, the access token is opaque to the client, and it is
> >> not specified, so I'm confused what you mean by "other types of tokens than
> >> JWT"?
> >>
> >> FI : I mean, for instance, linked data proofs, macaroons, and so on.
> >
> 
> I see. When I read 'token', I think of access tokens. You are referring to
> what I would call a claims, which per above are defined somewhere else.

My understanding was that macaroons, at least, were complete tokens that
incorporate (at least by reference) multiple claims.  So a macaroon and a
JWT would be analogous in that sense (container holding many claims).  I'm
not sure whether the same holds for a linked data proof (or if it's just a
way to represent a single claim), though.

Am I confused?

Thanks,

Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email