[Ace] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-13: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In sec 3.1 it says the AS SHOULD reject req_cnf if the key is symmetric. But in
Sec 5 it presents a totally reasonable use case where the C and RS hold a
previously established (symmetric?) key.  These observations are somewhat
contradictory. Should 3.1 include a qualifier. Would the AS know about this key
a priori so that it can ignore the recommendation? If not, how can this be done
safely?