<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thanks for the feedback. We don't have
      symmetric client auth in FAPI 2, so that can be removed.</div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">-Daniel<br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.06.20 um 11:40 schrieb Ralph
      Bragg:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:LNXP265MB080971D8C3A62935D657755CF6870@LNXP265MB0809.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div data-ogsc="" style="">
          <div dir="ltr">Another quick one, in the bottom Section on
            Cryptography and Secrets In bass line there is mention of
            “symmetric credentials” being permitted. But I couldn’t see
            anywhere in the requirements for AS that they should be
            supported. </div>
          <div dir="ltr"><br>
          </div>
          <div dir="ltr">If there’s a need can it be stated? (I’ll raise
            a ticket). Additionally for advanced profile this clause, if
            it’s still required, should be assymetric only no?</div>
          <div dir="ltr"><br>
          </div>
          <div dir="ltr">Will raise a ticket on advanced for that
            decision as well.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
      <div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
          face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
          Torsten Lodderstedt <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net"><torsten@lodderstedt.net></a><br>
          <b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 6, 2020 10:09:22 AM<br>
          <b>To:</b> Ralph Bragg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ralph.bragg@raidiam.com"><ralph.bragg@raidiam.com></a><br>
          <b>Cc:</b> Financial API Working Group List
          <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net"><openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net></a><br>
          <b>Subject:</b> Re: [Openid-specs-fapi] FAPI 2 Advanced
          Profile / Recommendations for signing resource
          requests/responses</font>
        <div> </div>
      </div>
      <div dir="auto">
        <div dir="ltr">I also suggest we document what metadata values
          AS and client are supposed to use, e.g. there will be the
          metadata parameter <span style="color:rgb(33,37,41);
            font-family:SFMono-Regular,Menlo,Monaco,Consolas,"Liberation
            Mono","Courier New",monospace;
            font-size:12.25px">require_pushed_authorization_requests </span>to
          let the AS indicate it supports pushed authorization requests
          only (<a
href="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/S76ODyZkHPSA6L69yyx08BuEP5M/"
            moz-do-not-send="true">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/S76ODyZkHPSA6L69yyx08BuEP5M/</a>).</div>
        <div dir="ltr"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="ltr">A FAPI2 compliant AS must set this value to true.</div>
        <div dir="ltr"><br>
          <blockquote type="cite">Am 06.06.2020 um 10:55 schrieb Ralph
            Bragg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ralph.bragg@raidiam.com"><ralph.bragg@raidiam.com></a>:<br>
            <br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <div dir="ltr">
            <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
              medium)">
            <style>
<!--
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
        {font-family:"Helvetica Neue"}
p.x_MsoNormal, li.x_MsoNormal, div.x_MsoNormal
        {margin:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif}
a:link, span.x_MsoHyperlink
        {color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline}
span.x_EmailStyle19
        {font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:windowtext}
.x_MsoChpDefault
        {font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
        {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt}
div.x_WordSection1
        {}
-->
</style>
            <div class="x_WordSection1">
              <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">Hi Daniel,</span></p>
              <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p>
              <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">In addition to
                  Torstens comments, and if we’re looking for backwards
                  combability, do we care or want to mandate that the
                  id_token from the front channel is ONLY used for code
                  binding. Sub is a mandatory property of the id_token
                  and as such required, to prevent any leakage of any
                  information useful to a potential attacker should the
                  sub property explicitly be made pairwise or some other
                  value deliberately not related to the resource owner /
                  subject.</span></p>
              <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p>
              <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">Kind Regards,</span></p>
              <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="">Ralph</span></p>
              <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p>
              <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p>
              <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p>
              <div style="border:none; border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;
                padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
                      color:black">From: </span>
                  </b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; color:black">Openid-specs-fapi
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:openid-specs-fapi-bounces@lists.openid.net"><openid-specs-fapi-bounces@lists.openid.net></a>
                    on behalf of Torsten Lodderstedt via
                    Openid-specs-fapi
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net"><openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net></a><br>
                    <b>Reply to: </b>Financial API Working Group List
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net"><openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net></a><br>
                    <b>Date: </b>Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 09:36<br>
                    <b>To: </b>Financial API Working Group List
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net"><openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net></a><br>
                    <b>Cc: </b>Torsten Lodderstedt
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net"><torsten@lodderstedt.net></a><br>
                    <b>Subject: </b>Re: [Openid-specs-fapi] FAPI 2
                    Advanced Profile / Recommendations for signing
                    resource requests/responses</span></p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal">Hi Daniel,</p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"><br>
                  <br>
                </p>
                <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;
                  margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                  <p class="x_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Am
                    05.06.2020 um 10:20 schrieb Daniel Fett via
                    Openid-specs-fapi
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net"><openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net></a>:</p>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
              <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                <div>
                  <p>Hi all,</p>
                  <p>I prepared a first (rough) draft of the FAPI 2
                    Advanced profile and would welcome your feedback:
                    <a
href="https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/c28fc020e7ab9377d96501f2b4daa9a9da8f2128/FAPI_2_0_Advanced_Profile.md?at=danielfett%2Ffapi2%2Fadvanced"
                      moz-do-not-send="true">
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/c28fc020e7ab9377d96501f2b4daa9a9da8f2128/FAPI_2_0_Advanced_Profile.md?at=danielfett%2Ffapi2%2Fadvanced</a></p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal">thanks for preparing the draft!</p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"> </p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal">Here are my comments:</p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal">- <span style="font-size:10.5pt;
                    font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
                    color:#172B4D; background:white">[@I-D.lodderstedt-oauth-par]
                    should refer to the WG draft</span></p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;
                    font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
                    color:#172B4D; background:white">- „ shall support
                    at least one of the following methods to sign the
                    authorization response:“</span></p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;
                    font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
                    color:#172B4D; background:white">I think the AS must
                    support at least one mode for interoperability
                    reasons. I think this should be JARM and ID token
                    may be supported (for the purpose of this profile)
                    for backward compatibility reasons.</span></p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;
                    font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
                    color:#172B4D; background:white">„</span><span
                    style="font-size:10.5pt; font-family:"Helvetica
                    Neue"; color:#172B4D">OPEN QUESTION: how to
                    handle userinfo response type selection? OIDC core
                    says: depends on client registration“ I think that's
                    fine. We use the same philosophy for all sorts of
                    request and response signing. It’s determined by
                    client registration parameters + general deployment
                    metadata (what is generally supported/expected).</span></p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;
                    font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
                    color:#172B4D">- „<span style="background:white">The
                      FAPI 2.0 endpoints are OAuth 2.0 protected
                      resource endpoints that return protected
                      information for the resource owner associated with
                      the submitted access token.“ - RSs also initiate
                      actions (eg payments), that’s one important reason
                      for requiring non-repudiation. I suggest to add
                      something like „.... that perform sensitive
                      actions and return protected information for the
                      resource owner ...“</span></span></p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;
                    font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
                    color:#172B4D; background:white"><br>
                    <br>
                  </span></p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;
                    font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
                    color:#172B4D; background:white">best regards,</span></p>
              </div>
              <div>
                <p class="x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;
                    font-family:"Helvetica Neue";
                    color:#172B4D; background:white">Torsten.</span></p>
              </div>
              <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt; margin-bottom:5.0pt">
                <div>
                  <p>One open question is whether we can give
                    recommendations regarding resource request and
                    response signing. We currently have
                    <a
href="https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial_API_HTTP_Signing.md"
                      moz-do-not-send="true">
https://bitbucket.org/openid/fapi/src/master/Financial_API_HTTP_Signing.md</a>
                    which lists "typical requirements" but does not give
                    concrete advice.</p>
                  <p>eTSI is developding JAdES and there is some work
                    ongoing in the IETF HTTP group as well.</p>
                  <p>What are other options that we should take a look
                    at?</p>
                  <p>-Daniel</p>
                  <p class="x_MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
                    Openid-specs-fapi mailing list<br>
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net">Openid-specs-fapi@lists.openid.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-fapi">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-fapi</a></p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>