[OAUTH-WG] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-12: (with COMMENT)
Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-access-token-jwt/ -- COMMENT: -- (2.1) "...can use any signing algorithm." I presume there ought to be some qualifiers on allowed algorithms? (4) and (5) "This specification does not provide a mechanism for identifying a specific key as the one used to sign JWT access tokens." I don't understand; there's a key ID right there in the token header? (4) I presume it's important that any resouree server rejection of the token should be constant-time. Is this somewhere in the RFC tree, or do we need to explicitly say it here and/or in Security Considerations? ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
[OAUTH-WG] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-32: (with COMMENT)
Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-32: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq/ -- COMMENT: -- After reading Sec 10.5, I was a little unclear how the client and auth server necessarily achieve interoperability, but I think it's just an editorial fix. If the server advertises that a signed object is required, then it cannot communicate with a client that does not support the extension. But if the object_required metadata is missing, then what is the metadata that tells the client to use a signed object if it can? IIUC the answer is that the server metadata includes the request_object_signing_alg_values_supported and/or request_object_encryption_alg_values_supported parameter in the metadata. It might be helpful to spell that out here. Is this correct? ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
