Hello, Thanks for updating the draft. I just want to confirm that Hannes is okay with the updated definitions and updates the shepherd report to reflect that.
This is getting held up a bit while we sort through copyright of text from UMA and OpenID. The text from UMA went into an IETF draft, so that should be the reference as it clears up any possible issues as they provided that text in an IETF draft. The chairs will be helping to sort out the requirements with OpenID, per our discussions the IETF trustees. I'm not sure how long this will take, but wanted to provide a status so no one thought this had been dropped. Thanks. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Hannes Tschofenig < hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Justin, Hi John, > > I believe that provisioning a client with a unique id (which is what a > client id/client secret is) allows some form of linkability. While it > may be possible to associate the client to a specific user I could very > well imagine that the correlation between activities from a user and > those from the client (particularly when the client is running on the > user's device) is quite possible. > > Ciao > Hannes > > On 02/18/2015 06:37 PM, Justin Richer wrote: > > I’ll incorporate this feedback into another draft, to be posted by the > > end of the week. Thanks everyone! > > > > — Justin > > > >> On Feb 18, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > >> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com > >> <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:07 AM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com > >> <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote: > >> > >> snip > >>> On Feb 18, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Kathleen Moriarty > >>> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > The client_id *could* be short lived, but they usually > aren't. I don't see any particular logging or tracking concerns using a > dynamic OAuth client above using any other piece of software, ever. As > such, I don't think it requires special calling out here. > >>> > >>> > >>> Help me understand why there should not be text that shows this > >>> is not an issue or please propose some text. This is bound to > >>> come up in IESG reviews if not addressed up front. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> The client_id is used to communicate to the Authorization server > >> to get a code or refresh token. Those tokens uniquely identify > >> the user from a privacy perspective. > >> It is the access tokens that are sent to the RS and those can and > >> should be rotated, but the client)id is not sent to the RS in > >> OAuth as part of the spec. > >> > >> If you did rotate the client_id then the AS would track it across > >> rotations, so it wouldn’t really achieve anything. > >> > >> One thing we don’t do is allow the client to specify the > >> client_id, that could allow correlation of the client across > >> multiple AS and that might be a privacy issue, but we don’t allow > it. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, John. It may be helpful to add in this explanation unless > >> there is some reason not to? > >> > >> > >> John B. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Kathleen > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OAuth mailing list > >> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OAuth mailing list > > OAuth@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > -- Best regards, Kathleen
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
