[Openid-specs-ab] Mandatory JWK Support for OpenID Connect

Magnus Andersson magnus.andersson at solvies.se
Fri Jul 27 18:29:47 UTC 2012


Hi

I agree with Anthony on that JWK will mean new tooling regardless.

But I personally don't think that the argument company X or Y have
implemented PKI today and should be able to continue using it is a strong
argument.

A standard, in my opinion, needs to be try to see beyond that and see what
best solves the targeted problems.

The end result might be the same as the above but it will be for different
reasons.

My opinion is only mandatory and no optional in this case. Regardless of
x509 or JWK.

Thanks
Magnus Andersson
 Den 27 jul 2012 19:47 skrev "John Bradley" <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>:

> Without one being mandatory on the server the client needs to support both
> to be interoperable.
>
> It is a case of pick your poison.
>
> We could always go back to xmldsig we have tools for that as well:)
>
> John B.
> On 2012-07-27, at 10:36 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
>
> If I have the tools already for x.509, why would I want to invest in
> another set of tools and have to work on them for years to get them to the
> point our x.509 tools are today? Not sure there should be a mandatory,
> there should be an equal option for both and you either implement one or
> the other oe both, but making JWK mandatory means everyone has to create
> new tooling and test the new tooling, etc.****
> ** **
> *From:* John Bradley [mailto:ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 27, 2012 10:18 AM
> *To:* Magnus Andersson
> *Cc:* Anthony Nadalin; openid-connect-interop at googlegroups.com;
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net; Edmund Jay
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Mandatory JWK Support for OpenID Connect*
> ***
> ** **
> There are some use cases where the use of PKIX trust relationships may be
> required.  ****
> ** **
> In the EU there may be reasons to publish a x.509 cert so that the
> signature on the id_token is qualified digital signature for non
> repudiation at higher LOA.****
> ** **
> I don't think anyone wants to remove the x.509 option.   ****
> ** **
> The question is if clients or servers MUST implement both, or if only one
> format needs to be mandatory for servers what should it be.****
> ** **
> For simple clients JWK is arguably (I say that knowing Tony will argue)
> simpler to build as it doesn't need ASN1 parsing.   For servers x.509
> certificates have existing tools.****
> ** **
> Our design principal to this point is for pushing complexity from clients
> to servers.****
> ** **
> John B.****
> On 2012-07-27, at 8:06 AM, Magnus Andersson wrote:****
>
>
> ****
> Hi****
> ** **
> My name is Magnus I own a startup and I'm implementing OpenID Connect.****
> ** **
> As an implementor: if the JWK-format is mandatory, exactly what added
> value does optionally exposing x.509 certificates to the client give? ****
> ** **
> As long as the JWK is mandatory I personally don't see how optional x.509
> certificates would simplify anything for those who have existing Public-key
> infrastructure. They still have to handle the JWK case and map that to
> their PKI.****
> ** **
> I recognize I don't know all the history in this matter. But could the
> option to choose only JWK (as it is already deemed mandatory) and skip
> x.509 be added, to balance out the current options?  ****
> ** **
> BR Magnus Andersson****
>
> Solvies AB****
> 2012/7/27 John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>****
> Extracting a key from a certificate is not that hard, to make a JWK out of
> it.  ****
> ** **
> We can likely automate that.   People who want to support x509 are free to
> do that it is just not mandatory for the client.   For the basic client
> using the code flow there is no MTI,  for the implicit flow  JWK is MTI if
> you want general support.  I suppose if a client just wants to talk to a
> specific IDP it could just do x509 if that is supported.****
> ** **
> The options are.****
> 1 Client must support both and server chooses****
> 2 Server must support both and client chooses****
> 3 Server must support one and the other is optional.****
> ** **
> Tony are you saying you prefer 1 or 2, or 3 your preference but making
> x.509 the default.****
> ** **
> There are advantages and disadvantages to picking JWK as the default.  ***
> *
> ** **
> It is true that most common tools like openSSL easily produce self signed
> certificates.****
> On the other hand they expire and create run time issues later because
> some people may try and do PKIX processing on them.  ****
> ** **
> This is a continual debate in SAML over raw keys vs certificates.   Many
> federations think raw keys cause less support issues over time.****
> ** **
> Thoughts?****
> ** **
> John B.****
> On 2012-07-26, at 9:43 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:****
> ** **
>
> This creates problems with folks that already have a PIK infrastructure
> and want to use existing keys****
>  ****
> *From:* Edmund Jay [mailto:ejay at mgi1.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:11 PM
> *To:* Anthony Nadalin; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net;
> openid-connect-interop at googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Mandatory JWK Support for OpenID Connect*
> ***
>  ****
> This is in reference to the open issue # 633 at
> http://hg.openid.net/connect/issue/633/messages-42-jwk-and-x509-format-support
> The specs currently support x509 and JWK format for publishing public keys
> but is silent on which must be supported.
> There may be interop problems related to cryptographic aspects of OpenID
> due to lack of common support between client and server.
>
> -- Edmund****
>  ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Anthony Nadalin <tonynad at microsoft.com>
> *To:* Edmund Jay <ejay at mgi1.com>; "openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net" <
> openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>; "
> openid-connect-interop at googlegroups.com" <
> openid-connect-interop at googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Thu, July 26, 2012 1:46:41 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Openid-specs-ab] Mandatory JWK Support for OpenID Connect*
> ***
> Can you provide the rationale or a pointer to the rationale?****
>  ****
> *From:* openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net
> [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net] *On Behalf Of *Edmund
> Jay
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:58 AM
> *To:* openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net;
> openid-connect-interop at googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* [Openid-specs-ab] Mandatory JWK Support for OpenID Connect****
>  ****
> This is to inform everyone that the Working Group has decided to make JWK
> support mandatory for both the client and server.
> Feedbacks welcome.
>
>
> -- Edmund****
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab****
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20120727/bd2a16dd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list