Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:45:37 +0100

Hi all,

it was roughly a year ago when we issued a working group last call on
draft-ietf-oauth-discovery, see
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15796.html. Lots
of feedback resulted in a significant restructuring of the document.

The authors of the draft now believe it is ready for a second WGLC and
hence we would like to start a 2-week review period.

Please provide your review comments no later than March 6th.

Here is the link to the document again:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-05

Ciao
Hannes & Derek

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:33:04 +0000

Per working group feedback, the document now reflects the singular mission of documenting OAuth Authorization Server Metadata as it is actually used in practice.  I believe that the document today accomplishes this mission and is ready for publication.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: OAuth [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:46 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Working Group Last Call on OAuth 2.0 Authorization Server Metadata

Hi all,

it was roughly a year ago when we issued a working group last call on draft-ietf-oauth-discovery, see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg15796.html. Lots of feedback resulted in a significant restructuring of the document.

The authors of the draft now believe it is ready for a second WGLC and hence we would like to start a 2-week review period.

Ciao
Hannes & Derek

---

From: William Denniss <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:59:07 -0800

I have reviewed version 05. Two minor comments regarding Section 2.1:

1. Should we clarify that alg:none isn't supported for the signed_metadata
JWT (since it would be contradictory)?

2. Re: "metadata values conveyed in the signed metadata MUST take
precedence over those conveyed using plain JSON elements."  Does this imply
that *all* values in the plain JSON elements should be ignored when the
signed_metadata is being used (not just ones present in the JWT)? If not,
should it?

Overall, I strongly support the publishing of this document as an RFC for
the following reasons:

Having "machine readable" configuration metadata published by authorization
servers is a useful concept. The Google authorization server (like many
others) publishes metadata compliant with this specification, and the
AppAuth series of client libraries are capable of consuming it.

Without this standardized machine-readable metadata, developers must read
documentation to extract the relevant information, and configure clients
manually. This is cumbersome, error prone, and may get out of date.

This specification can also help prevent one category of "mix up" attack in
systems which allow self-registration of OAuth endpoints for connected
services. Rather than the developer supplying both the authorization and
token endpoints themselves (which may enable them to specify a malicious
token endpoint), such a system can use the token endpoint specified in the
authorization server's metadata, thus preventing this category of attack
(and simplifying the registration process to boot).

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>