Re: [Ace] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stefanie Gerdes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

Thank you very much for your detailed comments!

We addressed your comments with two exceptions as explained in detail
below. You can see most of the changes at
https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-dtls-profile/commit/a9ee40dff5093f1cf43e1b734eb6e02745f43f4d

On 3/23/21 4:32 AM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: Discuss
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (A simple editorial fix) Per Section 5.8.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz], the
> name of the parameter in the C-to-AS communication is “ace_profile” (not
> “profile”).  The “ace_profile” parameter is mistakenly referenced as
“profile”
> in the following places:
>
> -- Section 3.2.1:
>    The response MAY contain a "profile" parameter with the value
>    "coap_dtls" to indicate that this profile MUST be used for
>    communication between the client and the resource server.
>
> -- Section 3.3.1:
>    If the
>    profile parameter is present, it is set to "coap_dtls".

Okay, done.

>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Thank you to Russ Mundy for the SECDIR review, and thank you to the
authors for
> responding to it.
>
> ** Does this profile only cover part of the oauth-authz framework?
Section 3.3
> explicitly says “the use of introspection is out of scope for this
> specification.”  It might be helpful to note in the introduction that this
> profile only covers C-to-AS and C-to-RS communication.

Fixed in introduction.

>
> ** Section 3.2.1 Figure 3, uses the “req_aud” parameter, but this was
renamed
> to “audience” in -20 of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz

Good catch! Fixed.

>
> ** Section 3.2.1.  Per ‘The response MAY contain a "profile" parameter
with the
> value "coap_dtls" to indicate that this profile MUST be used for
communication
> between the client and the resource server’, this is true (see the DISCUSS
> above though).  However, it might be worthwhile to point out that per
Section
> 5.8.2 of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-38, this “MAY” is actually a MUST
if the
> request has an empty “ace_profile” parameter.

Okay, fixed.

>
> ** Section 3.2.2.  Per “This specification therefore mandates
implementation
> support for curve25519 ...”, perhaps RFC2119 language should be used here

Okay, changed to MUST implement.

>
> ** Section 3.3.1.  Per all of the text after “The method for how the
resource
> server determines the symmetric key from an access token containing
only a key
> identifier is application-specific; the remainder of this section
provides one
> example”, consider removing all of the RFC2119 language is this text
as its an
> example.

The Gen-ART review from Paul Kyzivat of 19 Jul 2020 suggested to include
the normative language to avoid ending up with unclear specifications.
(The normative language has been added in
https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-dtls-profile/commit/9ab383c0e08f8d4bff5335cbfadb1c6b48289472)

>
> ** Section 3.3.2.  Per “When the resource server receives an access
token, it
> MUST check if the access token is still valid ...”, a reference to Section
> 5.10.1.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] for additional verification
procedures
> might be helpful

Fixed.

>
> ** Section 3.2.2. and 7:
>
> (a) Section 3.2.2.
>    To be consistent with [RFC7252] which allows for shortened MAC tags
>    in constrained environments, an implementation that supports the RPK
>    mode of this profile MUST at least support the ciphersuite
>    TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 [RFC7251].
>
> (b) As this specification aims at constrained devices and
>    uses CoAP [RFC7252] as transfer protocol, at least the ciphersuite
>    TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 [RFC6655] should be supported
>
> The text in (b) is weaker on the mandatory required of the
ciphersuite.  In
> (b), likely s/should be supported/must be supported/.

We changed (b) to MUST support.

>
> ** Section 7.  Per “For longer-lived access tokens, DHE ciphersuites
should be
> used”, perhaps add a parenthetical at the end of this sentence of “(i.e.,
> ciphersuites of the form TLS_DHE_PSK_*)”.

Fixed as suggested.

>
> ** Section 7.1.  Session resumption is noted to be NOT RECOMMENDED.
Is there a
> reason this can’t be stronger (MUST NOT)?

Prohibiting session resumption would be too restrictive as this can be
useful for very constrained clients. We therefore changed it as follows:

OLD:

   Therefore, the use of session resumption is NOT RECOMMENDED for
   resource servers.

NEW:

   Therefore, session resumption should be used only in combination with
   reasonably short-lived PoP keys.

>
> ** Section 7.2.  No issues with the guidance here.  Is there anything DTLS
> specific that suggests that developers "SHOULD" avoid multiple access
tokens
> per client?  That guidance isn’t in the core framework.  I made the
comment on
> the core framework that perhaps this text should be there (too?).

We are working on that with the other authors.

>
> ** Please reviews all of the reference numbers to
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] as
> a number of them seem to be incorrect (likely due to renumbering).
For example:

We fixed all framework references (including the ones below).

>
> -- Section 2.  Per “the client MUST upload the access token to the
authz-info
> resource, i.e. the authz-info endpoint, on the resource server before
starting
> the DTLS handshake, as described in Section 5.8.1 of
> [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]”, Section 5.8.1 is not the right reference.
 It’s
> likely 5.10.1.
>
> -- Section 3.4.  Per “The authorization server may, e.g., specify a "cti"
> claim for the access token (see Section 5.8.3 of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]) to
> employ a strict order”, Section 5.8.3 is the wrong section in
> [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
>
> -- Section 3.4.  Per “The response SHOULD include AS Request Creation
Hints as
> described in Section 5.1.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].”, there is
no Section
> 5.1.1. The appropriate section is either 5.2 to reference this
behavior or 5.3
> for the details of the hints.
>
> -- Section 3.4. Per “Incoming CoAP requests received on a secure DTLS
channel
> that are not thus authorized MUST be rejected according to Section
5.8.2 of
> [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]”, Section 5.8.2 is not the right reference
here.
>
> ** idnits returned the following:
>
>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC8152' is defined on line 1148, but no explicit
>      reference was found in the text

fixed.

>
>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC8613' is defined on line 1212, but no explicit
>      reference was found in the text

removed.

>
> ** Nits
> -- Section 7.1.  Typo. s/renogiation/renegotiation/

Fixed.

Best regards
Steffi