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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Brian!

William? Are you good with this version?

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Brian Campbell <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> I think -15 does address the inconsistency.
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:36 AM, John Bradley <[e-mail]> 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 <
>> [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> 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, <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen