Except that later on we require the token be signed and the client verify that
signed token. IOW mutual pop.
Phil
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 07:30, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> wrote:
>
> Looking at the diff I noticed the following new text, which seems to conflate
> bearer/PoP and opaqueness to the client. A client demonstrating
> proof-of-possession of some key is orthogonal to the client being able to
> parse and understand the access token itself.
>
> "In contrast to bearer tokens [RFC6750] which call for tokens that are opaque
> to OAuth 2.0 clients, this specification defines the requirements for
> proof-of-possession ("PoP") tokens that may be parsed and verified by OAuth
> 2.0 clients and relying parties."
>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> This draft addresses review comments from Kathleen and Erik raised since the
>> last draft.
>>
>> It may not include some of the discussion from yesterday/today. I will add
>> that as the group decides.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> @independentid
>> www.independentid.com
>> phil.h...@oracle.com
>>
>> > On Nov 24, 2015, at 12:05 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> > directories.
>> > This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group
>> > of the IETF.
>> >
>> > Title : OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession (PoP) Security
>> > Architecture
>> > Authors : Phil Hunt
>> > Justin Richer
>> > William Mills
>> > Prateek Mishra
>> > Hannes Tschofenig
>> > Filename : draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture-06.txt
>> > Pages : 23
>> > Date : 2015-11-24
>> >
>> > Abstract:
>> > The OAuth 2.0 bearer token specification, as defined in RFC 6750,
>> > allows any party in possession of a bearer token (a "bearer") to get
>> > access to the associated resources (without demonstrating possession
>> > of a cryptographic key). To prevent misuse, bearer tokens must be
>> > protected from disclosure in transit and at rest.
>> >
>> > Some scenarios demand additional security protection whereby a client
>> > needs to demonstrate possession of cryptographic keying material when
>> > accessing a protected resource. This document motivates the
>> > development of the OAuth 2.0 proof-of-possession security mechanism.
>> >
>> >
>> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture/
>> >
>> > There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture-06
>> >
>> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture-06
>> >
>> >
>> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> > submission
>> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> >
>> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OAuth mailing list
>> > OAuth@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>
> --
>
> Brian Campbell
> Distinguished Engineer
> Ping Identity
> @ bcampb...@pingidentity.com
> +1 720.317.2061
> @pingidentity
> Connect with us!
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
