Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 v21 Nits and Typos

Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> Tue, 20 September 2011 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687A321F8C09 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AqTCOZJ7xQp9 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A2F1C21F8C06 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 16452 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2011 20:20:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.ex1.secureserver.net) (72.167.180.20) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 20 Sep 2011 20:20:12 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.19]) by P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) with mapi; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:19:37 -0700
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: "Anganes, Amanda L" <aanganes@mitre.org>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:19:27 -0700
Thread-Topic: OAuth 2.0 v21 Nits and Typos
Thread-Index: Acx23/QyH/ollQzMTvycxaih82WAowA7WQkw
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345213D92CEB@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <235AEAA316C791418CE9E8FEFC77306110D6FFB801@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <235AEAA316C791418CE9E8FEFC77306110D6FFB801@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 v21 Nits and Typos
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:17:54 -0000

Thanks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Anganes, Amanda L
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:23 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 v21 Nits and Typos
> 
> Lots of minor grammar and wording catches here. I apologize if any of these
> were already brought up and addressed.
> 
> 1.2.3, second paragraph: "When issuing an implicit grant, the authorization
> server does not authenticate the client and in some cases, the client identity
> can be verified..." should be "When issuing an implicit grant, the authorization
> server does not authenticate the client. In some cases, the client identity can
> be verified..."
>
> 1.5, first paragraph. Last sentence should be changed to "Issuing a refresh
> token is optional. If an authorization server issues a refresh token, it is
> included when issuing an access token."
>
> 2.1, definition of public client: last sentence ends with "via any other mean"
> which should be "via any other means".
>
> 2.1, definition of native applications: "On the other hand, dynamically issued
> credentials such as access tokens or refresh tokens, can receive an
> acceptable level of protection" should be "On the other hand, dynamically
> issued credentials such as access tokens or refresh tokens can receive an
> acceptable level of protection" (final comma is unnecessary).
>
> 3.1, second paragraph. Add a comma after "beyond the scope of this
> specification", so it reads "The means through which the client obtains the
> location of the authorization endpoint are beyond the scope of this
> specification, but the location is typically provided in the service
> documentation".
 >
> 3.2.1, first sentence. Unnecessary comma between "requirements" and
> "MUST"; should read "Confidential clients, clients issued client credentials, or
> clients assigned other authentication requirements MUST authenticate..."
>
> 4.1, section (E): last sentence is missing a subject. "If valid, responds back
> with an..." should read "If valid, the authorization server responds back with
> an..."
>
> 4.1.2 and 4.1.2.1, also 4.2.2 and 4.2.2.1, state description: last sentence is
> missing a MUST. Should read "REQUIRED if the state parameter was present
> in the client authorization request. The state parameter MUST be set to the
> exact value received from the client."
>
> 4.1.3, redirect_uri description: Change "REQUIRED, if the redirect_uri
> parameter was included in the authorization request described in Section
> 4.1.1, and their values MUST be identical" to "REQUIRED, if the redirect_uri
> parameter was included in the authorization request as described in Section
> 4.1.1. If included, the two values MUST be identical".
>
> 4.1.3, final paragraph ("The authorization server MUST: ..."). Is any additional
> normative language required for lists such as this in order to specify that the
> AS must do ALL of the items in the list? Similar MUST lists appear elsewhere
> throughout the rest of the document.

The entire list is required.

> Also, final bullet should be reworded; suggest "ensure that the redirect_uri
> parameter is present if the redirect_uri parameter was included in the initial
> authorization request as described in Section 4.1.1, and if included ensure
> that their values are identical".
> 
> 4.2, first paragraph: clarify that implicit grants can be used only for access
> tokens by including the word "only" here: "The implicit grant type is used to
> obtain access tokens only..."

That might not be accurate with extensions.

> 4.3.2, paragraph after term parameter descriptions: "If the client type is
> confidential or was issued client credentials" should be reworded to "If the
> client type is confidential or the client was issued client credentials".
> 
> 9, bullets following second paragraph: Change this to a definition list format
> instead of a bulleted list.

This is not definitions.

> 9, final bullet following "when choosing between an external or embedded
> user-agent...": Last sentence starts "Embedded user-agent educate..." but
> should be "Embedded user-agents educate..."
> 
> 10.2, second paragraph: last sentence is a fragment. Reword to "For
> example, the authorization server should engage the resource owner to
> assist in identify the client and its origin."
> 
> 10.5, second paragraph, first sentence: extraneous comma between
> "authorization server" and "is". Should be "...verify that the resource owner
> who granted authorization at the authorization server is the same resource
> owner..."
> 
> 10.6, last paragraph, first sentence: extraneous comma between
> "authorization code" and "is the same". Should be "... the authorization
> server MUST ensure that the redirection URI used to obtain the
> authorization code is the same as the redirection URI provided ..."
> Last sentence should be reworded; suggest "The authorization server MUST
> require public clients and SHOULD require confidential clients to register their
> redirection URIs. If a redirection URI is provided in the authorization request,
> the authorization server MUST validate the URI received against the
> registered value."
> 
> 10.14, first sentence. Reads awkwardly and should be reworded; suggest "A
> code injection attack occurs when an unsanitized input or otherwise external
> variable is used to modify application logic."
> 
> 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4: second to last paragraph is missing "(s)" on the end of
> "Designated Expert" : "Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the Designated
> Expert can be..." should be "Decisions (or lack thereof) made by the
> Designated Expert(s) can be..."
> 
> 11.2, second paragraph has extraneous comma after "or the token endpoint
> response" : "...the token endpoint request, or the token endpoint response,
> are registered" should be "...the token endpoint request, or the token
> endpoint response are registered".
> 
> 11.2.1, "Parameter usage location" description should have references to the
> relevant sections of this spec, as 11.4.1 does.

No similar references available.

EHL