Re: [OAUTH-WG] A proposal for a new Internet Draft

2023-04-03 Thread Clinton Bunch
I was under the impression from my reading of the spec, that scopes were only ever intended as coarse-grained authorizations. I would not expect the AS to control finer-grained access as that would require intimate knowledge of the contents of the resource server.  (For example, what calendars

Re: [OAUTH-WG] A proposal for a new Internet Draft

2023-04-03 Thread Kai Lehmann
My company intends to add OAuth2 support for its groupware services (mail - imap/pop3/smtp, calendar, and contacts. We are “big enough” to have specific configurations in common groupware clients like Thunderbird and Outlook. Although we do not yet allow 3rd party AS, this may change in the

Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession (PoP) Security Architecture

2023-04-03 Thread Hannes Tschofenig
Hi Daniel, from the history of the group I think it is fair to say that we can guarantee that there will be further work on this topic. The reason why I agree with Nat is that neither DPoP nor MTLS paint the bigger picture. Ciao Hannes Am 03.04.2023 um 09:20 schrieb Daniel Fett: Hi

Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession (PoP) Security Architecture

2023-04-03 Thread Daniel Fett
Hi Nat, after reading through the PoP architecture document again, my impression is that this document had a lot of value before MTLS and DPoP came along. But when thinking about what an updated version could look like, and considering that it is unlikely for the moment that many other PoP