I am not supportive of adoption of this document at this time. I am supportive of the concepts in the document. Building upon existing, widely used, proven security mechanisms gives us better security.
HTTP Sig looks very promising, but it has not been adopted as a draft, and as far as I know, it is not widely deployed. We should wait to do work on extending HTTP Sig for OAuth until it has stabilized and proven itself in the field. We have more than enough work to do in the WG now, and having yet-another PoP mechanism is more likely to confuse the community at this time. An argument to adopt the draft would be to ensure HTTP Sig can be used in OAuth. Given Justin and Annabelle are also part of the OAuth community, I'm sure they will be considering how HTTP Sig can apply to OAuth, so the overlap is serving us already. /Dick ᐧ On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:04 PM Aaron Parecki <aa...@parecki.com> wrote: > I support adoption of this document. > > - Aaron > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:02 PM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> All, >> >> As a followup on the interim meeting today, this is a *call for adoption >> *for the *OAuth Proof of Possession Tokens with HTTP Message Signature* draft >> as a WG document: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richer-oauth-httpsig/ >> >> Please, provide your feedback on the mailing list by* October 20th*. >> >> Regards, >> Rifaat & Hannes >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
