Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-14.txt

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 10 July 2015 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5CC1AD49F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EaD3zckXnwEF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75F4B1AD373 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so19974670wig.0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=GyTJVL2DamHGRptpjAuSow9bmtygnRke3d1ncRZQ3ko=; b=oQS+wbZYAbi+c4kZsFpTaKDLzMeuxSskVVI56dIh+BxFN3GpRkaiRWhlifJ0t33FhF qtSllCCHD8h1VymWVIPguG7UflJAUxoN3GC96k9Lf45410m8Luqppso5l/d9CwubyWPL fc3LwpO845VSfQopk9Ezu+gUuJQQUXnZQ1MPHYTIRunm4EPN/vH6X1wMeb+ZVrXpcVTk z6paEwK+VNR92svg/ZizzgGBmQso9lRQww0yfy7lNyH0CE3ub9qGmSPizKD8xyJxezgg Ez+i2/WmAIbRzBXf9DsuIYDwc7VGF1Kij2YY4uC9012ZbS8uxXvIPyqRoyg+NL1mUgqp ji7g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.95.67 with SMTP id di3mr7610161wib.78.1436546025224; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.31.194 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+k3eCRfmEHQzVSaUQHDfTaSqrWjPgp+xSsDjONF=HaFp=iiPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150706230550.12450.15077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAAP42hD=CXnWUgQ5b=cgtqp2TkOgXWQ89yZtyEJe9_19K+72Mw@mail.gmail.com> <68C4B3E0-0A40-4035-A6B8-EB553573BE5D@ve7jtb.com> <CAAP42hDMH9gc97aa3-hjrLuRyFsc3j8tmSwDee-oJvMn4dxsAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAP42hA9B4HNURC6wZ+KBLre-VCXSz_BROZ6qcjSQ0ZTX4YC-w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+k3eCSLqwY2hF459oJU2d+tW6J5yKOVzN=3DSvWp+c-UoDNUw@mail.gmail.com> <0A42C02A-77C6-48DD-8BEC-52B31570FBAF@ve7jtb.com> <CAHbuEH6wotjbkb-jWxHMA+xxA-paw6e7Svbqqh6JGj-4giZtbw@mail.gmail.com> <E495F04D-0DE7-489B-8F8C-443AA20D5E4C@ve7jtb.com> <CA+k3eCRfmEHQzVSaUQHDfTaSqrWjPgp+xSsDjONF=HaFp=iiPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:33:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH4fC2QaCUxOjAUWJ-6mJZDcc29pG3FxLkjJrpRZRzDdsg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044287e2898073051a87efda
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/4Tj3ffqD1aDxW9ldBfZV7F0pYL0>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-14.txt
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:33:53 -0000

Thanks, Brian!

William? Are you good with this version?

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com
> wrote:

> I think -15 does address the inconsistency.
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:36 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes I believe I I addressed these comments as part of Barry’s discuss
>> points.
>> They were comments on the changes that Barry introduced that caused a
>> inconsistency.   I resolved that in 15.
>>
>> I think it is good to go.
>>
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
>> kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> The updates were included in the version I approved for posting that also
>> addressed Barry's discuss points, correct?
>>
>> Are we good with the current version to move forward:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-spop/
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:46 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have made some edits to make it consistent.  They are checked into the
>>> butbucket repo nat and I use, but we can’t update the official draft during
>>> the freeze before the IETF meeting.
>>>
>>> https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-spop
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with William that it's a little confusing. I get that there's a
>>> desire to discourage using "plain" but perhaps the language (especially the
>>> MUST NOT in 7.2) should be lightened up just a bit?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:22 PM, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Following up the discussion on today's NAPPS call, I understand why
>>>> plain is not presented as the recommended approach in the spec (though it
>>>> still has some value over not doing PKCE at all, in that it mitigates
>>>> against the current known attack where a rogue app registers the same
>>>> custom URI scheme as another), but I feel that after all the back and forth
>>>> the picture is a little confusing.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, 4.2 and 4.4.1 include some examples where plain is
>>>> supported:
>>>>
>>>> 4.2
>>>>> Clients SHOULD use the S256 transformation.  The plain transformation
>>>>> is for compatibility with existing deployments and for constrained
>>>>> environments that can't use the S256 transformation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4.4.1.
>>>>> If the client is capable of using "S256", it MUST use "S256", as
>>>>> "S256" is Mandatory To Implement (MTI) on the server. Clients are permitted
>>>>> to use "plain" only if they cannot support "S256" for some technical reason
>>>>> and knows that the server supports "plain".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But then 7.2 is very vocal that it MUST NOT be used for new
>>>> implementations:
>>>>
>>>> 7.2
>>>>> Because of this, "plain" SHOULD NOT be used, and exists only
>>>>> for compatibility with deployed implementations where the request path
>>>>> is already protected.  The "plain" method MUST NOT be used in
>>>>> new implementations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  What if those new implementations are constrained, as indicated in 4.2
>>>> and 4.4.1?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, while S256 is clearly indicated as MTI, little is said about
>>>> "plain", although it's alluded to that it's not MTI in 4.4.1 ("and knows
>>>> that the server supports "plain"").
>>>>
>>>> Should we be more explicit upfront that "plain" is optional for servers
>>>> to support, if that's the intention?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:51 PM, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> t_m works for me, I just think we should have some indication that
>>>>> it's the name of the transform. Will you also update where it is referenced
>>>>> in the description below Figure 2?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:28 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, I fixed my finger dyslexia for the next draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I changed it to t_m rather than “t”  I think that is clearer.  If I
>>>>>> were to do it the other way XML2RFC would have double quotes in the text
>>>>>> version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 7, 2015, at 9:38 PM, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In version 14, there's a typo on this line ("deso") in Section 7.2:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `"plain" method deso not protect`
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, in the 1.1 Protocol Flow diagram, regarding the text:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `+ t(code_verifier), t`
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if it makes more sense to represent as `+ t(code_verifier),
>>>>>> "t"` (note the quotes on the second 't') given that it's a string
>>>>>> representation of the method that's being sent?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:05 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>>>>> directories.
>>>>>>>  This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working
>>>>>>> Group of the IETF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Title           : Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth
>>>>>>> Public Clients
>>>>>>>         Authors         : Nat Sakimura
>>>>>>>                           John Bradley
>>>>>>>                           Naveen Agarwal
>>>>>>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-oauth-spop-14.txt
>>>>>>>         Pages           : 20
>>>>>>>         Date            : 2015-07-06
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>    OAuth 2.0 public clients utilizing the Authorization Code Grant
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>    susceptible to the authorization code interception attack.  This
>>>>>>>    specification describes the attack as well as a technique to
>>>>>>> mitigate
>>>>>>>    against the threat through the use of Proof Key for Code Exchange
>>>>>>>    (PKCE, pronounced "pixy").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-spop/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-14
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-spop-14
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>>>>>> submission
>>>>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen