Batch tokens submitted to IESG awaiting AD review
Private Token HTTP Authentication Scheme Extensions Parameter is ready
to go to IESG
Privacy Pass Issuance Protocols with Public Metadata
Token expiration in last call
ARC is no longer active
See slides
Questions:
Tommy: Good doc. Right thing to split the header out from the
architecture, all deployments have their own ways of doing it. Re:
client state, what would you imagine? Base documents don't talk about
client state, they do talk about caching to some degree. Even without
reverse flow, you have some state you need to keep. What are you
imagining?
Thibault: Splitting finalization and presentation makes it important to
understand interaction with state management. Not sure it is
specifically useful, cause all deployments have that.
Tommy: I've seen both models, one where you are spending a token to get
a token which is equivalent, and another where the new thing is stored
separately. May be good to call that out.
Thibault: Issuers can be different.
Ben: What are deployed systems like?
Thibault: We want to keep and repeat these requests without
re-attestation.
Ben: Does it use this HTTP header?
Thibault: No.
Ben: Running in HTTP?
Thibault: Some are.
Ben: Ones which are in HTTP are using different headers. Are those
implementations relying on special browser capabilities or running above
the browser?
Thibault: Not all tied to the browser, similar to Privacy Pass.
Sam: Is this basically just attestation expanded into redemption?
Thibault: Yes, but it is complex enough.
Gianpaolo: Can this be used to transport age?
Thibault: Possibly.
Sam: State management maybe good.
Thibault: Maybe.
Tommy: This is pretty well understood, so we should adopt and move it
along. We can publish quickly. Can we get a poll in the room to do that?
Joe: Sure.
Nick: State should be important for privacy. There are attacks where
multiple interactions could make the token linkable. Should the browser
feel safe storing even if the user tries to clear all local state?
Thibault: Privacy properties are similar to Privacy Pass except it might
be a distinct issuer.
Ben: On Nick's point, this draft references the consistency draft for
origins creating numerous issuers to violate the guarantees of the
protocol. The consistency draft is expired. What should we do?
Thibault: Consistency draft could be brought back but hasn't been
adopted in practice. We can remove it and go forward.
Ben: Maybe conssitency checking isn't part of the threat model.
Sam: Cross browser impls will need consistency solution.
Chris W: Interested people should work on consistency, lets just do the
adoption call.
Joe: Poll.
Q1: Have you read the doc?
Yes: 13
No: 9
Q2: Do you think we should adopt?
Yes: 13
No: 1
Joe: We should do an adoption call and we can finish it off.
Pronunciation unclear.
See slides
Joe: What are the next steps for MoLE? BoF? IETF?
Thibault: We are taking to IETF and the side meeting was useful. BoF
maybe in 127.
David: There is interest, folks want to write and read docs, etc.
Architecture feels viable. Regroup with proponents and start to see if
we can put a charter together. We'll present such a charter to our ADs
for their pondering.
Tommy: As I mentioned yesterday, the one place we want alignment is on
the Privacy Pass IANA registry for these building blocks. We want to
evolve our implementations from basic blind sigs to these. Thinking
about how that could work and speculating, this doesn't require this
group per se but we want to use that registry. Don't care where the work
goes, lots of options. The main priority I have is putting it in
dialogue with the building blocks in the registry.
Thibault: We will indeed keep talking with folks in the room.
Deb Cooley: You have options, you can recharter Privacy Pass, open a
working group, you don't have to have a BoF. Might be easier to charter
without a BoF. There needs to be community and people interested in
implementing, interoperability concern, regardless of path. I don't have
an opinion at the moment, but this is something the proponents need to
decide what they want. I want to ensure the group is active and not
sleepy. Here to help.
Thibault: BoF is nice because of community engagement that comes with
it.