Very interesting. Do you have any use case documents from which the requirements you highlight as missing are defined? I’d love to see those.
Thanks, George -- George Fletcher Practical Identity LLC > On Mar 11, 2026, at 4:50 PM, Kieran Sweeney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I am writing to share comments on draft-klrc-aiagent-auth-00, attached as a > PDF. The core framework is well-grounded, and I have focused my feedback on > three areas where the delegation chain mechanics need further specification > work. > > The comment covers: (1) underspecification of multi-hop delegation semantics > in RFC 8693 as applied to this framework, specifically the absence of chain > verification, scope attenuation rules, and revocation propagation standards; > (2) a delegation chain splicing vulnerability in RFC 8693 disclosed on the > OAuth WG list in February 2026, which is directly relevant to Sections > 10.1-10.4; and (3) an architectural failure mode in enterprise-managed > authorization when the IdP is unavailable. > > I am also preparing a companion Internet-Draft > (draft-sweeney-oauth-agent-delegation-00) that profiles RFC 8693 for > multi-hop agent delegation chains -- covering delegation artifacts, chain > verification, mandatory scope attenuation, and cryptographic context binding > to resist the splicing attack. I plan to submit this draft ahead of IETF 125 > and would welcome discussion on the WIMSE or OAuth lists. > > The comment PDF is attached. Happy to discuss any of the points raised. > > Best, > > Kieran Sweeney > > > <IETF-CRE12-COMMENT.pdf> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
