[Openid-specs-fapi] [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-campbell-oauth-tls-client-auth-00.txt
bcampbell at pingidentity.com
Fri Oct 28 20:31:20 UTC 2016
Not wanting to add more meta parameters was a motivation. Also not being
sure of how to enumerate the possible approaches. My thinking was also that
there are a lot of factors involved and that it'd probably be better left
to service documentation to describe things like what authorities are
trusted and what the client to cert binding is. Like I said, we can look at
adding more metadata, if there's some consensus to do so. But I worry that
it'll just be bloat that doesn't really add value.
I also think that, in many situations, it's unlikely that a cert will
contain a client id anywhere as subject information. A client id is scoped
to a particular authorization server and it's hard to imagine a CA issuing
a cert with an identifier that's only meaningful in the context of some
other entity like that. Maybe in a more closed system where the AS and an
organizational CA are both in the same management/administrative domain but
not in the more general case.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir at connect2id.com
> I see. Do you reckon the AS could simply probe the likely cert places
> for containing the client_id? My reasoning is that there aren't that
> many places where you could stick the client_id (let me know if I'm
> wrong). If the AS is in doubt it will respond with invalid_client. I'm
> starting to think this can work quite well. No extra meta param will be
> needed (of which we have enough already).
> On 22/10/16 01:51, Brian Campbell wrote:
> > I did consider something like that but stopped short of putting it in the
> > -00 document. I'm not convinced that some metadata around it would really
> > contribute to interop one way or the other. I also wanted to get the
> > concept written down before going too far into the weeds. But I'd be open
> > to adding something along those lines in future revisions, if there's
> > consensus that it'd be useful.
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <
> vladimir at connect2id.com
> >> wrote:
> >> Superb, I welcome that!
> >> Regarding https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-campbell-oauth-tls-
> >> client-auth-00#section-5.2 :
> >> My concern is that the choice of how to bind the client identity is left
> >> to implementers, and that may eventually become an interop problem.
> >> Have you considered some kind of an open ended enumeration of the
> >> binding methods, and giving them some identifiers or names, so that AS /
> >> OPs can advertise them in their metadata, and clients register
> >> For example:
> >> "tls_client_auth_bind_methods_supported" : [ "subject_alt_name_match",
> >> "subject_public_key_info_match" ]
> >> Cheers,
> >> Vladimir
> >> On 10/10/16 23:59, John Bradley wrote:
> >> At the request of the OpenID Foundation Financial Services API Working
> group, Brian Campbell and I have documented
> >> mutual TLS client authentication. This is something that lots of
> people do in practice though we have never had a spec for it.
> >> The Banks want to use it for some server to server API use cases being
> driven by new open banking regulation.
> >> The largest thing in the draft is the IANA registration of
> “tls_client_auth” Token Endpoint authentication method for use in
> Registration and discovery.
> >> The trust model is intentionally left open so that you could use a
> “common name” and a restricted list of CA or a direct lookup of the subject
> public key against a reregistered value, or something in between.
> >> I hope that this is non controversial and the WG can adopt it quickly.
> >> Regards
> >> John B.
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >> From: internet-drafts at ietf.org
> >> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-campbell-oauth-tls-clien
> >> Date: October 10, 2016 at 5:44:39 PM GMT-3
> >> To: "Brian Campbell" <brian.d.campbell at gmail.com> <
> brian.d.campbell at gmail.com>, "John Bradley" <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com> <
> ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>
> >> A new version of I-D, draft-campbell-oauth-tls-client-auth-00.txt
> >> has been successfully submitted by John Bradley and posted to the
> >> IETF repository.
> >> Name: draft-campbell-oauth-tls-client-auth
> >> Revision: 00
> >> Title: Mutual X.509 Transport Layer Security (TLS)
> Authentication for OAuth Clients
> >> Document date: 2016-10-10
> >> Group: Individual Submission
> >> Pages: 5
> >> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-
> >> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> >> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/d
> >> Abstract:
> >> This document describes X.509 certificates as OAuth client
> >> credentials using Transport Layer Security (TLS) mutual
> >> authentication as a mechanism for client authentication to the
> >> authorization server's token endpoint.
> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >> The IETF Secretariat
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing listOAuth at ietf.orghttps://www.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OAuth mailing list
> >> OAuth at ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Openid-specs-fapi