Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps

Kathleen Moriarty <> Tue, 25 April 2017 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E8B2131B89 for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6bgcIEnpKl7Y for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C531131BA1 for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g2so29542029pge.3 for <>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DH2soQi4fuDGXBL3W++U3QyXeaaPmVpB0Lclqnf0/w8=; b=NKA7o4eOCl8VFg5zV/zgaDm5UONGb0A3esDYdzSZ4hv08dNcEyZ77Mf4VX/+w/oX62 t/LaYRvyUYvwkOZyPmtoao7r79F8Vu/nd6ybJailcchJf3ySTLp/1dFHf5dJfUgXr24A QU2CC3oBYpt1qiWIDtOe6S3nZn00eOcAQw/CpQlhvG2azKpXI0V5LMaQEfs8mQH+Ss0F n7za0GnbZIg9UNqzQ8k1tknQAiDl2TPI49bCeGLYd7DAOYYPsnsnX1B1pm+fcT2LFuzK WrKeSCxEt0GXHIUiwAYteTfDAImzSScz8yIEDu8DQ7j4uz2KIRSY0FHd/0b/SOuwP+Od gUjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DH2soQi4fuDGXBL3W++U3QyXeaaPmVpB0Lclqnf0/w8=; b=OYnzxcu2GaJZyn7O1UOFCafgnNZJtz/cFO37gCEswaDpVQ4pvpYjJzVbeqCFpKce8C SgfXWNagAv6bSOqpZa5uvmnhFgDE0o/xa65ymevsgdDUFPDX9uNs6TXe2mRT8yd0CR6V pBuK/aR+kNifzBLDRJ8VsgW9jauBKDAlWDGL+AMHK1VQa5N+vEiCifmZEWYIPff+374K mj0D+gg1zyC7JPAWDgJaUm55DMhbeyDt8le/6qPOEW7B3/jtqKPAXfuNGZHdQnCiqFLg Sq+uIsLisPnEi/L5ISbH+saVhURuI5bCUKNdFZNB4JEFpO0EnYnQDv4rCvUuvOcAlv+s eqag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/77DEwbvpMLKcblxlAmzuYWwkQxKbc8yF14uxilVV/Pdehsd6Hd 3Ai8mH2XErx5Exin8sdGBqr1359k1g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h34mr3371449pld.129.1493131062093; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 07:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:37:01 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: John Bradley <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:40:29 -0000


On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:09 AM, John Bradley <> wrote:
> Thanks Kathleen,
> William and I will address these shortly.
> We can take out the IANA section completely if you think it is better.

No, I think it's fine.  Let's see what happens.  It could be helpful
text for some readers, I was just pointing out that some questions may

> In the current implementations on Android and iOS Universal Links/App Links and  are only http or HTTPS schema URI making them URL.
> So while all URL are URI, we could be more specific if that is OK with the style police.  I thought the URL term was currently discouraged..

You have it in a couple of places already, so consistency would be
easier to argue if you felt it was needed in the places where it is
already, hence my comment.  I can't be sure what the URI style police
will say, but consistency helps in most situations.  If this is
specific to an example, that's fine.  If the general pattern could be
a URI (not a URL), then just be sure that is clear in the text.

Please let me know when it is ready and I'll start the IETF last call.


> John B.
>> On Apr 24, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Thanks for taking the time to document this best practice and the
>> implementations in the appendix. I have one comment and a few nits.
>> Security Considerations:
>> I think it would go a long way to organize these as ones that apply to
>> this best practice and ones (8.1 and the example in 8.2) about
>> alternate solutions.  This could also be done through some added text,
>> but making this clear would be helpful.  Maybe moving 8.1 and 8.2
>> until after the rest of the sections would be enough and then clearly
>> state the intent of this text.
>> IANA Section:
>> Just a note - you might get some questions about this, but i do think
>> it's fine to leave that text, although unnecessary.
>> Nits:
>> Section 5, punctuation
>> OLD:
>>   By applying the same principles from the web to native apps, we gain
>>   benefits seen on the web like the usability of a single sign-on
>>   session, and the security of a separate authentication context.
>> NEW:
>>   By applying the same principles from the web to native apps, we gain
>>   benefits seen on the web, like the usability of a single sign-on
>>   session and the security of a separate authentication context.
>> The document has text that says 'native app' in some places and 'app'
>> in others, I assume these are used interchangeably?  It seems that
>> they are used interchangeably.
>> Really nitty:
>> Section 7.2,
>> Since you are still in the example, did you mean URL in the following:
>> Such claimed HTTPS URIs can be used as OAuth redirect URIs.
>> Such claimed HTTPS URLs can be used as OAuth redirect URIs.
>> And again in the last paragraph of this section.
>> I'm only asking since you specify URL earlier in this section, so you
>> were more specific for the example and then drop back to URI (which is
>> correct, but wondering if you wanted to continue at the same level of
>> specificity or if there was a reason to just say URI here.
>> Section 8.11
>> s/uri/URI/
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list


Best regards,