I’m queasy about the interop implications of using a query parameter. Questions then arise like “What if I receive an ni: URI without the query parameter. Should I accept it as valid or reject it?” and “What if the query parameter is different than the one I expected? Should I accept it or reject it?”
Finally, I believe that defining a particular query parameter would violate the “Get off my lawn” provisions of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7320. For several reasons, I believe we’re better off staying with the syntax we have. Best wishes, -- Mike From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 2:28 PM To: Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> Cc: Manger, James <James.H.Manger=40team.telstra....@dmarc.ietf.org>; last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-...@ietf.org; oauth-cha...@ietf.org; oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-01.txt> (JWK Thumbprint URI) to Proposed Standard Mike, RFC6920 defines an optional query parameter, in section 3: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6920.html#section-3 I guess you could have added a query parameter to add that specificity. Regards, Rifaat On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 10:04 AM Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> wrote: Hi James. Thanks for your review. While ni: could have been used, ni: conveys nothing about the hash is of. Whereas urn:ietf:params:oauth:jwk-thumbprint says that the hash is a JWK thumbprint. At least for the use cases we anticipate, this additional specificity adds value. -- Mike From: last-call <last-call-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:last-call-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Manger, James Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 9:26 AM To: last-c...@ietf.org<mailto:last-c...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-...@ietf.org>; oauth-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-cha...@ietf.org>; oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-01.txt> (JWK Thumbprint URI) to Proposed Standard draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-01 uses labels from the Named Information IANA registry<https://www.iana.org/assignments/named-information/named-information.xhtml> to create URIs from hashes, but then why doesn’t it just use the RFC that created that registry and already defines a way to format hashes as URIs [RFC 6920 Naming Things with Hashes<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6920.html>]? For a JSON object representing a JWK whose SHA-256 hash (base64url-encoded) is NzbLsXh8uDCcd-6MNwXF4W_7noWXFZAfHkxZsRGC9Xs: * RFC6920 defines the URI: ni:///sha-256;NzbLsXh8uDCcd-6MNwXF4W_7noWXFZAfHkxZsRGC9Xs * draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-01 defines the URI: urn:ietf:params:oauth:jwk-thumbprint:sha-256:NzbLsXh8uDCcd-6MNwXF4W_7noWXFZAfHkxZsRGC9Xs -- James Manger From: OAuth <oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of The IESG <iesg-secret...@ietf.org<mailto:iesg-secret...@ietf.org>> Date: Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 7:17 am To: IETF-Announce <ietf-annou...@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-annou...@ietf.org>> Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-...@ietf.org> <draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-...@ietf.org>>, oauth-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-cha...@ietf.org> <oauth-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-cha...@ietf.org>>, oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-01.txt> (JWK Thumbprint URI) to Proposed Standard [External Email] This email was sent from outside the organisation – be cautious, particularly with links and attachments. The IESG has received a request from the Web Authorization Protocol WG (oauth) to consider the following document: - 'JWK Thumbprint URI' <draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-01.txt> as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-c...@ietf.org<mailto:last-c...@ietf.org> mailing lists by 2022-05-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification registers a kind of URI that represents a JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint value. JWK Thumbprints are defined in RFC 7638. This enables JWK Thumbprints to be used, for instance, as key identifiers in contexts requiring URIs. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. _______________________________________________ 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
