Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference Values Specification

[Brian Campbell]

There's a method of authentication that is gaining in popularity which I'd
propose adding a method for. It is typically used as a second factor where
after a primary auth, like username and password, a push notification is
sent to the user's phone and they acknowledge it from the device. We have
the PingID product 
that does it and Entrust

and Duo , among
others I'm sure, offer something similar.

It's commonly called "mobile push authentication" so maybe "mpa" could be
the amr value. But, as Nat pointed out, the really interesting
characteristic is that it's a second factor that utilizes only a secondary
channel - so perhaps "sca" for "second channel authentication" would be a
more appropriate general amr name.

Thoughts are welcome. But I believe it's becoming prevalent enough that it
deserves its own amr value in this doc.




On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Mike Jones 
wrote:

>  I agree that an obvious good thing to do is to add spec references to
> the field definitions.
>
>
>
> I need to investigate use cases for amr_values.  I think this came from
> developers who actually wanted this for a particular purpose but I’ll have
> to get back to the WG on that.  It’s defined here, rather than in another
> spec, because it’s highly related to the “amr” values.
>
>
>
> -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Nat Sakimura
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:22 PM
> *To:* William Denniss
> *Cc:* 
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference Values
> Specification
>
>
>
> So, allow me a naive question.
>
> I supppose there are good random otp, as well as pretty bad otp etc.
>
> Would it be useful to say just "otp". Would it not be better to have at
> least a field that references a spec that specifies the security
> requirement for that mechanism?
>
>
>
> 2015-07-23 12:05 GMT+02:00 William Denniss :
>
> Thanks for drafting this Mike. I'm in favor of having this registry.
>
>
>
> In addition to the specific values, I propose we add some generic ones too
> (trying to follow your naming scheme):
>
>
>
> "rba":  "risk-based auth"
>
> "upt":  "user presence test"
>
>
>
> My fear of making things too specific is that RPs may get lost in the
> weeds trying to work out what things they should care about and how. As an
> IdP we like to guide RPs through these kinds of decisions, and prefer to
> pass a more high level indication of what happened (such as these two
> values).  If someone wanted to have best of both worlds, then both could be
> asserted, e.g. "upt fpt" to indicate that the user presence was tested,
> using a fingerprint test.
>
>
>
> Regarding the proposed "wia" value. I don't know what it is, and the spec
> doesn't help me find out, can a reference be added?  I also wonder if it
> could be genericized to avoid being vendor specific values – but mostly I
> just want to understand what it is.  Almost all the other values are
> self-explanatory, perhaps "pop" could use a reference as well (or maybe
> just a longer explanation).
>
>
>
> I don't see the immediate value of "amr_values", can you elaborate with
> some places where this would be applied?  Separately, I wonder if an
> extension to OIDC should be included in this doc, which is otherwise a
> fairly clean registry spec that could be used more broadly.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Brian Campbell <
> bcampb...@pingidentity.com> wrote:
>
> So maybe a naive question but why does this draft define "amr_values"
> while also suggesting that it's fragile and that "acr" & "acr_values" is
> preferable? Seems contradictory. And I doubt I'm the only one that will
> find it confusing.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Mike Jones 
> wrote:
>
> The key part of this is establishing a registry.  That can only be done in
> an RFC.
>
>
>
> John, I encourage you to submit text beefing up the arguments about why
> using “acr” is preferable.  The text at
> http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-jones-oauth-amr-values-00.html#acrRelationship
> 
> is a start at that.
>
>
>
> -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* John Bradley [mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2015 9:30 AM
> *To:* Justin Richer
> *Cc:* Mike Jones; 
> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] Authentication Method Reference Values
> Specification
>
>
>
> I don’t personally have a problem with people de

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting Minutes

[Brian Campbell]

My sense of the consensus in the room is as Justin describes it.

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Justin Richer  wrote:

> > Consensus: For use of existing params defined in OAuth, while allowing
> some to be optional when not needed.
>
> That was not the consensus as I understood it in the room. The consensus
> was the first portion, as originally noted. The second portion was Mike’s
> requested amendment, and it (and other aspects like the value of
> token_type) were brought up as details that the editors would work on and
> come back to the list.
>
>  — Justin
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Mike Jones 
> wrote:
> >
> > Good notes.  Please apply the following fixes to them...
> >
> > To the list of new OAuth RFCs since the last meeting please also add:
> >   draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token
> >   draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer
> >   draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer
> >
> > Please change:
> >   Mike: If the access_token is used, then we must add to spec that
> it's there for historic reasons and say that it's actually not always the
> same token.
> > to:
> >   Mike: If the access_token is used, then we must add to spec that
> it's there for historic reasons and say that it's actually not always an
> access token.
> >
> > Please change:
> >   Consensus: For use of existing params defined in OAuth.
> > to:
> >   Consensus: For use of existing params defined in OAuth, while
> allowing some to be optional when not needed.
> >
> > Please change:
> >   Mike: Microsoft oauth2 server have a 'resource' param to indicate
> the audience.
> > to:
> >   Mike: Microsoft oauth2 server has a 'resource' param to indicate
> the resource that the access token will be used to access.
> >
> > whitely used -> widely used
> >
> > We need to go on with out lives -> We need to go on with our lives
> >
> > ready to a shepherd write-up -> ready for a shepherd write-up
> >
> > Finally, I would add a note saying:
> >   Some additional drafts are planned, including
> draft-jones-amr-values and draft-ietf-oauth-discovery
> >
> >   Thanks
> >   -- Mike
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes
> Tschofenig
> > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:19 AM
> > To: oauth@ietf.org
> > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting Minutes
> >
> > Here are the notes from our meeting yesterday:
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fproceedings%2f93%2fminutes%2fminutes-93-oauth&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7ccb085108ecb0454b33c008d293699b85%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=5GiVy2SivZk6GWeoXtabbQG1q3r1%2bL%2fnM4o2BmH5Kv8%3d
> >
> > Thanks to Erik for taking notes.
> >
> > Please let me know if something is missing or incorrect within the next
> > 2 weeks.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
> >
> > ___
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> ___
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting Minutes

[Justin Richer]

> Consensus: For use of existing params defined in OAuth, while allowing some 
> to be optional when not needed.

That was not the consensus as I understood it in the room. The consensus was 
the first portion, as originally noted. The second portion was Mike’s requested 
amendment, and it (and other aspects like the value of token_type) were brought 
up as details that the editors would work on and come back to the list.

 — Justin


> On Jul 25, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Mike Jones  wrote:
> 
> Good notes.  Please apply the following fixes to them...
> 
> To the list of new OAuth RFCs since the last meeting please also add:
>   draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token
>   draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer
>   draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer
> 
> Please change:
>   Mike: If the access_token is used, then we must add to spec that it's 
> there for historic reasons and say that it's actually not always the same 
> token.
> to:
>   Mike: If the access_token is used, then we must add to spec that it's 
> there for historic reasons and say that it's actually not always an access 
> token.
> 
> Please change:
>   Consensus: For use of existing params defined in OAuth.
> to:
>   Consensus: For use of existing params defined in OAuth, while allowing 
> some to be optional when not needed.
> 
> Please change:
>   Mike: Microsoft oauth2 server have a 'resource' param to indicate the 
> audience.
> to:
>   Mike: Microsoft oauth2 server has a 'resource' param to indicate the 
> resource that the access token will be used to access.
> 
> whitely used -> widely used
> 
> We need to go on with out lives -> We need to go on with our lives
> 
> ready to a shepherd write-up -> ready for a shepherd write-up
> 
> Finally, I would add a note saying:
>   Some additional drafts are planned, including draft-jones-amr-values 
> and draft-ietf-oauth-discovery
> 
>   Thanks
>   -- Mike
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 7:19 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Meeting Minutes
> 
> Here are the notes from our meeting yesterday:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fproceedings%2f93%2fminutes%2fminutes-93-oauth&data=01%7c01%7cMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7ccb085108ecb0454b33c008d293699b85%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=5GiVy2SivZk6GWeoXtabbQG1q3r1%2bL%2fnM4o2BmH5Kv8%3d
> 
> Thanks to Erik for taking notes.
> 
> Please let me know if something is missing or incorrect within the next
> 2 weeks.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> ___
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth