I think Brian also argued that flattening would save a registry, and be easier to process in the default case.
I don’t really by the argument that having a cnf object makes it that much harder to process. I think it is stylistically better json to keep the elements together so that they can be extended separately from the main JWT claim space. Having two confirmation elements could be done flat but I think that gets even more messy. I understand Brians arguments, however prefer having a cnf object with no array. I have to agree with his observation that we should keep away from promoting multiple confirmation elements as it adds to complexity and interoperability issues. Better to make one work well and allow for an extension for those cases that really need it. I think the SAML subject confirmation is too complex for most people who use it to really understand all the combinations of options. John B. > On Aug 11, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> > wrote: > > I took Nat's "+1" as support for flattening things into individual claims > like "cjwe", "cjwk" and "ckid". Maybe that's just confirmation bias on my > part. But it'd be interesting to get Nat's actual opinion as apposed to his > assumed or implied opinion. Nat? > > It seems to me that it's really a question of aesthetics because the > arguments in favor of the structured claim approach that cite flexibility or > the ability to "carry more than one conformation key or key descriptor" are > erroneous. Both approaches can carry more than one as long as they are > different types and both can achieve additional flexibility by adding new > names for things (all of which, I suspect, will be very unlikely to happen > anyway). My suggesting to flatten was an attempt at simplification. And I do > think it would simplify. But that's only my opinion. If folks prefer the > aesthetics and structure of the "cnf" as currently defined and feel it's > easier to comprehend, I can live with that. All the rest of the > justification, however, just obscures things. > > To Kathleen's request, the thread index is > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/threads.html#14854 > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/threads.html#14854> and > starts with http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14854.html > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14854.html>. The > consensus therein seems to be to leave things as they are (though only John, > Mike and I participated and I was the minority opinion). > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com > <mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: > Brian's note contained two suggestions, which I'll address separately. > > The first was to have "cnf" contain an array of values rather than individual > values. But even he said "I'm not sure the extra complexity is worth it > though. I've rarely, if ever, seen SAML assertions that make use of it." I > took Nat's +1 as an agreement that the complexity of array values isn't worth > it, and shouldn't be introduced. No one else has since spoke up for having > the "cnf" claim contain array values, and Brian only mentioned it as a > possibility but dismissed it as too complex. > > The second was to not have the "cnf" claim at all, but instead to flatten > things so that the "cnf" elements would become individual claims, along the > lines of "cnf_jwk", "cnf_jwe", "cnf_kid", etc. This was discussed in the > thread " [OAUTH-WG] JWT PoP Key Semantics WGLC followup 3 (was Re: > confirmation model in proof-of-possession-02)" - for instance, John Bradley's > message http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14859.html > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14859.html> in which > he stated that "flattening would be a bad direction". Nat also implicitly > endorsed keeping "cnf" in his WGLC review comments in > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14418.html > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14418.html>, in his > comment "Since 'cnf' appears before 3.4, it may be better to bring 3.4 at the > front." He suggested changing the location of "cnf" in the document - not > removing it, as Brian's flattening suggestion would have done. > > Tony Nadalin also earlier had spoken about the need to support use cases in > which there would be multiple proof-of-possession keys. Among other places, > he alluded to this in his note > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14305.html > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14305.html> in which > he wrote "Is this proposal also limited to a single key for both asymmetric > and symmetric?". This is pertinent because as I wrote in the first thread > mentioned at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14856.html > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14856.html>, "Part of > the reasoning for using a structured confirmation claim, rather than > flattening the confirmation claim into the top-level JWT claims set, is that > a JWT may carry more than one conformation key or key descriptor" - per > Tony's use cases. John Bradley's note agreeing that flattening would be a > bad direction was a response to that. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com > <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com>] > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 6:00 AM > To: Mike Jones > Cc: Brian Campbell; oauth > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] confirmation model in proof-of-possession-02 > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com > <mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: > > There didn’t seem to be support for having cnf contain array values. > > Instead, as discussed in the thread “[OAUTH-WG] JWT PoP Key Semantics > > WGLC followup 3 (was Re: confirmation model in > > proof-of-possession-02)”, if different keys are being confirmed, they > > can define additional claims other than “cnf” using the same structure > > as “cnf” to represent those confirmations. Indeed, those other claims > > could be array-valued, if appropriate. The reasons for having a > > structured “cnf” claim, rather than a set of flattened claim values, were > > also discussed in that thread. > > Can you send the link to that thread and the result if it differs from what > Brian and Nat agree on? I'd like to know that there is enough to determine > consensus on this point. > > Thanks! > Kathleen > > > > > > > > Thanks > > again, > > > > -- Mike > > > > > > > > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>] > > On Behalf Of Brian > > Campbell > > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 9:07 AM > > To: oauth > > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] confirmation model in proof-of-possession-02 > > > > > > > > This is mostly about section 3.4 but also the whole draft. > > > > > > If "cnf" is intended to analogous to the SAML 2.0 SubjectConfirmation > > element, it should probably contain an array value rather than an > > object value. SAML allows not just for multiple methods of confirming > > but for multiple instances of the same method. IIRC, only one > > confirmation needs to be confirmable. > > > > I'm not sure the extra complexity is worth it though. I've rarely, if > > ever, seen SAML assertions that make use of it. > > > > If the intent is just to allow for different kinds of confirmation, > > couldn't the structure be pared down and simplified and just have > > individual claims for the different confirmation types? Like "cjwk" > > and "ckid" or similar that have the jwk or kid value respectively as the > > member value. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OAuth mailing list > > OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.i > > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.i> > > etf.org > > <http://etf.org/>%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2foauth&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40mi > > crosoft.com > > <http://crosoft.com/>%7ca8e38b0ea0334d11e50008d2a24cc573%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2 > > d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=9ukCTugBdbhTVriEoH3HdfMIloD%2fTHYY%2bdPOpQSs7x4% > > 3d > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Kathleen > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
