Agreed. We need to clarify that the token need not be signed, as that's a choice that's orthogonal to PoP.
-- Mike ________________________________ From: Justin Richer<mailto:jric...@mit.edu> Sent: 11/25/2015 10:27 AM To: Phil Hunt<mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com> Cc: <oauth@ietf.org><mailto:oauth@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture-06.txt Right, I read that as text for describing the examples and not for describing requirements. The token itself doesn’t have to be signed at all. — Justin On Nov 25, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com<mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>> wrote: Ok. Well this was requested by Kathleen because of this paragraph in Sec 6.… To simplify the subsequent description we assume in the PoP architecture that the token itself is digitally signed by the authorization server and therefore cannot be modified. Please Phil @independentid www.independentid.com<http://www.independentid.com/> phil.h...@oracle.com<mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu<mailto:jric...@mit.edu>> wrote: The token doesn’t have to be signed and the client doesn’t have to verify the signature on the token. That’s not PoP. The request has to be signed in a way that includes the token. The token itself can still be opaque. The *key* material can’t be opaque to the client, but the *token* material still is. I agree with Brian that this statement is misleading. The examples use a signed token but that is absolutely not a requirement. Maybe the examples shouldn’t all use one style. What’s most difficult about this particular spec is that it’s very hand-wavy, saying “this is kinda a thing that kinda works like this” without saying how to actually do it. I’m honestly not sure it’s worth publishing as an RFC in its own right but I’m not going to stand in its way. — Justin On Nov 25, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com<mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>> wrote: Where does it say that? On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Phil Hunt <phil.h...@oracle.com<mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.independentid.com/> phil.h...@oracle.com<mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com> > On Nov 24, 2015, at 12:05 PM, > internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto: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<http://tools.ietf.org/>. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth -- [Ping Identity logo]<https://www.pingidentity.com/> Brian Campbell Distinguished Engineer Ping Identity @ bcampb...@pingidentity.com<mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com> [phone] +1 720.317.2061<tel:%2B1%20720.317.2061> [twitter] @pingidentity Connect with us! <https://www.pingidentity.com/>[pingidentity.com]<https://www.pingidentity.com/> <https://ping.force.com/Support/PingIdentityCommunityHome>[pingidentity.com]<https://ping.force.com/Support/PingIdentityCommunityHome> [twitter logo]<http://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Ping-Identity-EI_IE380907.11,24.htm> [twitter logo] <https://twitter.com/pingidentity> [youtube logo] <https://www.youtube.com/user/PingIdentityTV> [LinkedIn logo] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/21870> [Facebook logo] <https://www.facebook.com/pingidentitypage> [Google+ logo] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114266977739397708540> [slideshare logo] <http://www.slideshare.net/PingIdentity> [flipboard logo] <http://flip.it/vjBF7> [rss feed icon] <https://www.pingidentity.com/blogs/> -- [Ping Identity logo]<https://www.pingidentity.com/> Brian Campbell Distinguished Engineer Ping Identity @ bcampb...@pingidentity.com<mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com> [phone] +1 720.317.2061 [twitter] @pingidentity Connect with us! <https://www.pingidentity.com/>[pingidentity.com]<https://www.pingidentity.com/> <https://ping.force.com/Support/PingIdentityCommunityHome>[pingidentity.com]<https://ping.force.com/Support/PingIdentityCommunityHome> [twitter logo]<http://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Ping-Identity-EI_IE380907.11,24.htm> [twitter logo] <https://twitter.com/pingidentity> [youtube logo] <https://www.youtube.com/user/PingIdentityTV> [LinkedIn logo] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/21870> [Facebook logo] <https://www.facebook.com/pingidentitypage> [Google+ logo] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114266977739397708540> [slideshare logo] <http://www.slideshare.net/PingIdentity> [flipboard logo] <http://flip.it/vjBF7> [rss feed icon] <https://www.pingidentity.com/blogs/> _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
