I meant William - sorry! -------- Originalnachricht -------- Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference Values: Call for Adoption Finalized Von: Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net> An: William Denniss <wdenn...@google.com>,Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> Cc: "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>
>Hi Denniss, > >out of curiosity: Does Google use amr values? > >best regards, >Torsten. > >Am 14.02.2016 um 02:40 schrieb William Denniss: >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Mike Jones >> <michael.jo...@microsoft.com <mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: >> >> It's an acceptable fallback option if the working group decides it >> doesn't want to register the values that are already in production >> use at the time we establish the registry. But add William points >> out, Google is already using some of these values. Microsoft is >> using some of them. The OpenID MODRNA specs are using some of >> them. So it seems more efficient to register them at the same time. >> >> That would be my preference. >> >> >> +1, it is also my preference to register the current values. >> >> I don't see any harm in the spec that establishes the registry also >> seeding it with all known values in use at the time of drafting, >> regardless of the group that originally specified them. Makes the >> original spec more useful, and avoids the need to submit each value >> for consideration separately – they can be all be reviewed at the same >> time. >> >> >> From: Justin Richer <mailto:jric...@mit.edu> >> Sent: 2/13/2016 11:11 AM >> To: Phil Hunt <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com> >> >> Cc: <oauth@ietf.org> <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference Values: >> Call for Adoption Finalized >> >> Can we just do that, then? Seems to be the easiest way to address >> various needs and concerns. >> >> — Justin >> >>> On Feb 13, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Phil Hunt (IDM) >>> <phil.h...@oracle.com <mailto:phil.h...@oracle.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Yes >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> On Feb 13, 2016, at 07:59, "tors...@lodderstedt.net >>> <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net>" <tors...@lodderstedt.net >>> <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net>> wrote: >>> >>>> So basically, the RFC could also just establish the new registry >>>> and oidf could feel in the values? >>>> >>>> (just trying to understand) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Originalnachricht -------- >>>> Betreff: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference Values: >>>> Call for Adoption Finalized >>>> Von: Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com >>>> <mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> >>>> An: tors...@lodderstedt.net >>>> <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net>,John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com >>>> <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> >>>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> >>>> >>>> The context that most people on this thread probably don’t have >>>> is that an IANA registry can only be established by an RFC. >>>> Non-RFC specifications, such as OpenID specifications, can >>>> **register** values in a registry, but they cannot **establish** >>>> a registry. The OpenID Foundation inquired about this with the >>>> IETF before OpenID Connect was finalized and learned that its >>>> specifications could not establish IANA registries. Otherwise, >>>> they would have. >>>> >>>> Instead, RFCs need to be created to establish registries – even >>>> for values first defined in non-RFC specifications. This >>>> specification is one example of doing this. >>>> >>>> -- Mike >>>> >>>> *From:*OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of >>>> *tors...@lodderstedt.net <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net> >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 13, 2016 6:37 AM >>>> *To:* John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> >>>> *Cc:* oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference >>>> Values: Call for Adoption Finalized >>>> >>>> We clearly have this problem between oauth and oidc. Just take a >>>> look at the discovery thread. >>>> >>>> According to you argument I see two options: >>>> (1) amr stays an oidc claim, is used in oidc only and the oauth >>>> wg just publishes the registry entries. In this case, the spec >>>> should clearly explain this. >>>> (2) amr is of any use in oauth (although it has been invented in >>>> oidc) - than define it and motivate it's use in oauth in this spec. >>>> >>>> Right now, I think it creates the impression oauth is for >>>> authentication. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Originalnachricht -------- >>>> Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference Values: >>>> Call for Adoption Finalized >>>> Von: John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> >>>> An: tors...@lodderstedt.net <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net> >>>> Cc: roland.hedb...@umu.se,oauth@ietf.org >>>> <mailto:roland.hedb...@umu.se,oauth@ietf.org> >>>> >>>> This is not a issue between oauth and OIDC. >>>> >>>> This has to do with the registry for JWT being in OAuth. Many >>>> protocols that use JWT are going to want to register claims. >>>> >>>> We can’t ask them to all move the parts of there specs that use >>>> JWT to OAuth. >>>> >>>> Perhaps JWT should have been part of JOSE, but that is water >>>> under the bridge. >>>> >>>> The OAuth WG is responsible for JWT and it’s registry, and we >>>> will need to deal with registering claims. >>>> >>>> I guess that we can tell people that they need to publish the >>>> specs defining the claims someplace else, and just do the >>>> registry part. >>>> >>>> However doing that will probably not improve interoperability >>>> and understanding. >>>> >>>> This document defines the claim for JWT in general. We still >>>> have almost no documentation in the WG about what a JWT access >>>> token would contain other than the POP work. >>>> >>>> John B. >>>> >>>> On Feb 13, 2016, at 9:18 AM, tors...@lodderstedt.net >>>> <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> I basically support adoption of this document. Asserting >>>> authentication methods in access tokens (in this case in >>>> JWTS format) is reasonable. We use it to pass information >>>> about the authentication performed prior issuing an access >>>> token to the _resource_ server. >>>> >>>> What worries me is the back and forth between oauth and >>>> oidc. The amr claim is defined in oidc (which sits on top of >>>> oauth) but the oauth wg specifies the registry? Moreover, >>>> the current text does not give a rationale for using amr in >>>> context of oauth. >>>> >>>> As a WG we need to find a clear delineation between both >>>> protocols, otherwise noone will really understand the >>>> difference and when to use what. We create confusion! >>>> >>>> For this particular draft this means to either move amr to >>>> oauth or the registry to oidc. >>>> >>>> best regards, >>>> Torsten. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- >>>> Von: Roland Hedberg <roland.hedb...@umu.se >>>> <mailto:roland.hedb...@umu.se>> >>>> Gesendet: Friday, February 12, 2016 05:45 PM >>>> An: oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> >>>> Betreff: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference >>>> Values: Call for Adoption Finalized >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> > 12 feb 2016 kl. 16:58 skrev John Bradley >>>> <ve7...@ve7jtb.com <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>>: >>>> > >>>> > +1 to adopt this draft. >>>> > >>>> >> On Feb 12, 2016, at 3:07 AM, Mike Jones >>>> <michael.jo...@microsoft.com >>>> <mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Draft -05 incorporates the feedback described below - >>>> deleting the request parameter, noting that this spec isn't >>>> an encouragement to use OAuth 2.0 for authentication without >>>> employing appropriate extensions, and no longer requiring a >>>> specification for IANA registration. I believe that it’s >>>> now ready for working group adoption. >>>> >> >>>> >> -- Mike >>>> >> >>>> >> -----Original Message----- >>>> >> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>>> Hannes Tschofenig >>>> >> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:23 AM >>>> >> To: oauth@ietf.org <mailto:oauth@ietf.org> >>>> >> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference >>>> Values: Call for Adoption Finalized >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >> >>>> >> On January 19th I posted a call for adoption of the >>>> Authentication Method Reference Values specification, see >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15402.html >>>> >> >>>> >> What surprised us is that this work is conceptually very >>>> simple: we define new claims and create a registry with new >>>> values. Not a big deal but that's not what the feedback from >>>> the Yokohama IETF meeting and the subsequent call for >>>> adoption on the list shows. The feedback lead to mixed >>>> feelings and it is a bit difficult for Derek and myself to >>>> judge consensus. >>>> >> >>>> >> Let me tell you what we see from the comments on the list. >>>> >> >>>> >> In his review at >>>> >> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15423.html >>>> James Manger asks for significant changes. Among other >>>> things, he wants to remove one of the claims. He provides a >>>> detailed review and actionable items. >>>> >> >>>> >> William Denniss believes the document is ready for >>>> adoption but agrees with some of the comments from James. >>>> Here is his review: >>>> >> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15426.html >>>> >> >>>> >> Justin is certainly the reviewer with the strongest >>>> opinion. Here is one of his posts: >>>> >> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15457.html >>>> >> >>>> >> Among all concerns Justin expressed the following one is >>>> actually actionable IMHO: Justin is worried that reporting >>>> how a person authenticated to an authorization endpoint and >>>> encouraging people to use OAuth for authentication is a fine >>>> line. He believes that this document leads readers to >>>> believe the latter. >>>> >> >>>> >> John agrees with Justin in >>>> >> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15448.html >>>> that we need to make sure that people are not mislead about >>>> the intention of the document. John also provides additional >>>> comments in this post to the >>>> >> list: >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15441.html >>>> >> Most of them require more than just editing work. For >>>> example, methods listed are really not useful, >>>> >> >>>> >> Phil agrees with the document adoption but has some >>>> remarks about the registry although he does not propose >>>> specific text. His review is here: >>>> >> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15462.html >>>> >> >>>> >> With my co-chair hat on: I just wanted to clarify that >>>> registering claims (and values within those claims) is >>>> within the scope of the OAuth working group. We standardized >>>> the JWT in this group and we are also chartered to >>>> standardize claims, as we are currently doing with various >>>> drafts. Not standardizing JWT in the IETF would have lead to >>>> reduced interoperability and less security. I have no doubts >>>> that was a wrong decision. >>>> >> >>>> >> In its current form, there is not enough support to have >>>> this document as a WG item. >>>> >> >>>> >> We believe that the document authors should address some >>>> of the easier comments and submit a new version. This would >>>> allow us to reach out to those who had expressed concerns >>>> about the scope of the document to re-evaluate their >>>> decision. A new draft version should at least address the >>>> following issues: >>>> >> >>>> >> * Clarify that this document is not an encouragement for >>>> using OAuth as an authentication protocol. I believe that >>>> this would address some of the concerns raised by Justin and >>>> John. >>>> >> >>>> >> * Change the registry policy, which would address one of >>>> the comments from James, William, and Phil. >>>> >> >>>> >> Various other items require discussion since they are >>>> more difficult to address. For example, John noted that he >>>> does not like the use of request parameters. Unfortunately, >>>> no alternative is offered. I urge John to provide an >>>> alternative proposal, if there is one. Also, the remark that >>>> the values are meaningless could be countered with an >>>> alternative proposal. James wanted to remove the >>>> "amr_values" parameter. >>>> >> Is this what others want as well? >>>> >> >>>> >> After these items have been addressed we believe that >>>> more folks in the group will support the document. >>>> >> >>>> >> Ciao >>>> >> Hannes & Derek >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> 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 >>>> >>>> — Roland >>>> >>>> ”Everybody should be quiet near a little stream and listen." >>>> >From ’Open House for Butterflies’ by Ruth Krauss >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > >_______________________________________________ >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
