This is my sentiment as well, I would not support this text being added to
the DPoP draft.

Aaron



On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:35 AM Justin Richer <[email protected]> wrote:

> I for one appreciate it being a separate draft as I don’t agree with this
> solution but do think we should move forward with DPoP.
>
>  — Justin
>
> On Mar 10, 2020, at 6:40 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> What was the reason for creating a separate draft for this?
> Why cannot this be folded into the exiting DPoP draft?
>
> Regards,
>  Rifaat
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:12 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As I previously described <https://self-issued.info/?p=1967>, members of
>> the OAuth working group have developed a simplified approach to providing
>> application-level proof-of-possession protections for OAuth 2.0 access
>> tokens and refresh tokens.  This approach is called OAuth 2.0 Demonstration
>> of Proof-of-Possession at the Application Layer (DPoP).  Among other
>> benefits, it does not require a complicated and error-prone procedure for
>> signing HTTP requests, as some past approaches have.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, the DPoP specification to date has assumed that the client is
>> using the OAuth authorization code flow.  As promised at the last IETF
>> meeting, we’ve now published a simple companion specification that
>> describes how DPoP can be used with the OAuth implicit flow – in which
>> access tokens are returned directly from the authorization endpoint.  The
>> specification is mercifully brief because very little had to be added to
>> supplement the existing DPoP spec to enable use of DPoP with the implicit
>> flow.  Thanks to Brian Campbell and John Bradley for whiteboarding this
>> solution with me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, in a related development, it was decided during the OAuth
>> virtual interim meeting today to call for working group adoption of the
>> core DPoP draft.  That’s an important step on the journey towards making it
>> a standard.
>>
>>
>>
>> The specification is available at:
>>
>>    - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-dpop-implicit-00
>>
>>
>>
>> An HTML-formatted version is also available at:
>>
>>    -
>>    https://self-issued.info/docs/draft-jones-oauth-dpop-implicit-00.html
>>
>>
>>
>>                                                        -- Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> P.S.  This notice was also posted at https://self-issued.info/?p=2063
>> and as @selfissued <https://twitter.com/selfissued>.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
-- 
----
Aaron Parecki
aaronparecki.com
@aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to