Re: [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-06
Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se> Fri, 13 October 2017 21:58 UTC
Return-Path: <samuel@erdtman.se>
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 15BE51320CF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=erdtman-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 SIwT8Zzy6MyL for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::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 DF94D124239 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id b6so2969143pfh.7 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=erdtman-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=orWwdtTyR4iXTlQJiUyLBQX87D/OCozKLJPKHjsGkwI=; b=IzpCqdz9w6RcqTvrm1F4YW5MPHHtrusuJl9slXV5DLqcv/zpDCVaQxcvrdUbyDmwfk J2r6gYdxGczd2KkPhl/CejbLPaJyaDHDBWOkoOfU7ZDVhbRTY0QS8Kee/vDRQciRKWID Vrnwg3osrMDF8zYxvZ/1wkuNfEUPhSHCDWfttPQz2d8QtKp75thIPzoHx+Pezem4pyS9 kKEj+Fp5a+dWKSJ7ZpZyDXRYKfmA7mx9hF5Wtc9PqwoMpMLTzzdIKQr6pgwoRAt8l8x1 TQvUcmhTWxK91VHceJYqqHbMg+HYWIrlrrUC+Eem3LPjoqN6cXO23SoNSYwah5wUVRhk QtIA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=orWwdtTyR4iXTlQJiUyLBQX87D/OCozKLJPKHjsGkwI=; b=Zdj/9EyhGQZ6IBNURZTgKudnqd1LUsaGy96PN+7pvuSdzsS1zExks1xhnjqD1Y3ZJx Qz7fprQvN7RyxdT99ociRUjAln3QSroCS0bfa3HbFwNiJ/PCULzKz0itEbaQV4Wrr7bJ BWVwTuSf0jAfiBEMkC7qi4RVUWuMFRZowHSJc5QTlMKnhQb7zr8/1fgZDLHj6OQrbtA0 36/VZZ77gHMGuUP9shH3ElWe36LQDhGJ3kQbmcZ8IIM/JZ4D1AbXtUrV75VLG9LKkD8d ulHrbC6PNx6e5GvuuC4ThxcXiiS1eNLG+9qzLpXNQ3m7Nk/4SQuaCplJ3ev1Vi0Ker40 Pybw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWeNB4ddbCUlYA2408DfpbgeT+bJms6RxktP/z+hiXyR37nKTOr wWDtk+wdYlG7i5gfJRxG+Ii9Fol/TB8OS5yu6ooYFg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCs8poIoEwHmpnl46GrSqO5xwIvCBqDsEpcgELfn02lINUEoImR9kwbQzMtkhXHJJn2yZitdCZQZT3fYAGZnoE=
X-Received: by 10.101.87.202 with SMTP id q10mr2415528pgr.141.1507931935103; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.186.199 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAF2hCbbLr88b97ic1zdrsWtVh-7hFonfFf+E8iEKZxUp1_fhLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF2hCbbLr88b97ic1zdrsWtVh-7hFonfFf+E8iEKZxUp1_fhLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:58:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF2hCba5o9jYNScz5E-qSkgiqTeANyMFbPvV031pGF4rV8Koog@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
Cc: "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow.authors@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08237c18566f1a055b74c3d0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/LQvF381MZWzsiuiYzSRXCWld0d4>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-06
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 13 Oct 2017 21:58:58 -0000
Ping On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se> wrote: > Hi Authors > > Thanks for writing this very useful draft. > > I have some review comments that I hope will be useful. > > As a general comment, has it been considered to include CoAP mappings too? > it might be good to reach even more constrained devices (maybe another > draft). > > > 1. Introduction > Missing newline between Step E and D > > 1. Introduction > The bullet list with the polling of the client and the user authorisation > is a bit hard to read, step D comes again after E. Maybe it would be easier > to read if using decimal numbers. > > ‘1. Introduction’ and ‘3. Protocol’ > I would like to move the ascii art and the corresponding list of steps > from ‘1. Introduction’ to ‘3. Protocol’ and use the terminology explained > in ‘2. Terminology’ > > 3.1. Device Authorization Request > Is there no authentication? e.g. use of client secret? (or Pre-Shared Key > or Raw Public key as described in draft-erdtman-ace-rpcc) > I don’t think client identification is enough I think it should > authenticate, at least as the recommendation. > > 3.2. Device Authorization Response > I would like to change verification_uri be optional. If for example the > device vendor has a companion app that app could easily have the > verification_uri, that would simplify for the user that would only have to > enter the code. (and it could save some bytes). > > 3.2. Device Authorization Response > I think it would make sense to add an optional parameter with the token > endpoint uri, in that way it does not have to be hardcoded in the client > (or discovered) but the AS can tell the client where to get the token. Or > it could be done with a redirect to the token URL or the Device > Verification Code could be a the URL to poll instead. > > 3.4. Device Access Token Request > client_id, it says REQUIRED but then it states that it is to be used only > if “client is not authenticating with the authorization server as described > in Section 3.2.1. of [RFC6749].” > I think the parameter should be optional and authentication required. > > 3.2. Device Authorization Response and 3.5. Device Access Token Response > “The interval at which the client polls MUST NOT be more frequent than > the "interval" parameter returned in the Device Authorization > Response (see Section 3.2).” > “OPTIONAL. The minimum amount of time in seconds that the client > SHOULD wait between polling requests to the token endpoint.” > Feels like a contradiction between the parameter description and token > endpoint response. I would like to have MUST in both cases. > > 3.5. Device Access Token Response > I think last paragraph is better suited in the introduction section. > > 5.2. Device Trustworthiness > I think device authentication should/could be mentioned here > > > > > > > >
- [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow… Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-device-… Samuel Erdtman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-device-… William Denniss