[OAUTH-WG] Re: draft-oauth-browser-based-apps

Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> Fri, 17 January 2025 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <aaron@parecki.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 4BB7BC1840FB for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:02:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=parecki.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w3DQ24W-e11c for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:02:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52146C151983 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:02:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-4aff78a39e1so344715137.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:02:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parecki.com; s=google; t=1737079362; x=1737684162; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gfAqRHhBIrYYBkPeJOrXg06asxuxE4HezNUQ4u1EER4=; b=DQYBz9gGIlIquXhGWwaXhjRvfHzxMJrMfMLEfAKVncq6NiGR2yeDzz7ODCvzMpVZn6 xb9ZNXlPJPhxCShXqVDYDiru9RVv7D5rQvo/Cxi1hSEJJgDXu0DB8CnKZGoGLWlAD9Lw aOpuTmoi9D/gZigg/lSO8WViP1nCV4B8LAXI9us4vWSni2UJmGwou6ltpiHePniWIua5 9N0MSJf/GmzFhjLdDpoAkIBYcDgNgtNU3Wv7Z7tzCbJIQ+XtR3I8ppwiRqv9SkB+6vAl ok86ubk6JQQN2IifVB0XQne9EFDgRcACNCB/hfZcXVx0pfD5Oh/0Tj7JVIUqhf4PDciY eQcA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1737079362; x=1737684162; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=gfAqRHhBIrYYBkPeJOrXg06asxuxE4HezNUQ4u1EER4=; b=pn8xAxTm6UbaijETuZfvpQy/8qzbd0wBuQp3pbSD2jDw1awt7dtrCOADcrsBpt0XPF d8Q0ADAJxYg8+v+eg8ne3UQIiR5CqEpWZV7d3YejAs5eEyA9RO47OSjK/0yZ3Qwlr81p f4Jq/4xBX50xIvk/nBqFi5n0kQduVU9mn1ZIq32HrMH5X5ffCGbvXKyYGqAAK9xie3tG VtjPvdqfZGEnzpIYo7j7wAyKSb8efSD7Zu4QLSkP74gQRtzp5r+3ykcqxxltgHVxe8BP 9HU/Bu1JRGGA7i0hDljuDONQ72a6y87OzcJpfLEvCRrkK70AFiyCTRDpcprY3lSkVwEt vyfg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWGcpGx2SppMbgTwVgSZRQyZA31wZ2r6xgy83sITEkaTng7x4xS5uagNKWF9qFcEHUFdab/eA==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwyqSYq8MCuBawyTVPUetKEOlLMBZkDIrV/+3nBf8hIXKYWessF hHSbb39ASKfdTtNKeb6HbyQRkHn9kAgT+xgxqN3foKqr320fsK/0sP6eHeLRxg7H5Rcnwdq8AW8 =
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuvhsQKf21mBUvMwcxE8EI6kLeGWXtejzXI8QIMC7/OJP35dZFzxFtzTe9WDV6 SyWgZzXFm1u55B5YANGNkoipuwm7yg35Vho0IfNuYYOt5wLqQDLh2dv9OHkz+/w9VAclYqUZhX9 TZin94yTJjp8Pt7Dny3PQDJ7Uas7QgGDPbPZN/CG8hAkfk99JnWPA+MI5DRH3D67zEYiIWwe/e1 7hQ0uDQabdRK8JDHvC5H5+r1wgP37y3u5K8zddCHiXNn8u2KXK1cI6ZGbHVHuprbLIYTWGElOk+ 1NA+X8C/f0T0S5g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGNQNcru651qBRx4KNSHzDlh899l8UF24E00HPFMYwpSx4C/N4suz2x8K+3EVV2cIomiCpVbw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3ec8:b0:4af:a98a:bd67 with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-4b690b9a0e9mr792143137.3.1737079362356; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:02:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-f48.google.com (mail-ua1-f48.google.com. [209.85.222.48]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ada2fe7eead31-4b68a1edb96sm296380137.5.2025.01.16.18.02.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-f48.google.com with SMTP id a1e0cc1a2514c-85c4b4cf73aso336156241.2; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:02:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVBxiGge2m1a1nqn0um0Eh20LMig1jLkdYuRmvUt8q+U/dfXFmwVzWrwxo2LHed+banzB0I7qu2VTg+iSH++h+Ez/QEEvI2KjyibmESMFhJwbxur7y38DoNEUrX@ietf.org, AJvYcCWBWyVfMUV2nD1VblkIUQ/AQA3/Uj3ORGY9N4zzcwWDKsz3zII3G8OyevAAbq+aldspYubjQwc=@ietf.org, AJvYcCXV+6XMqAR18vCYSv6GTHBjydaMw8xnnCwtYk6KWCDRtiWixUo1aVomB9df1diteO0BDG15B7ARJ2mK8e85@ietf.org
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:488e:b0:518:6286:87a4 with SMTP id 71dfb90a1353d-51d595af946mr1001021e0c.4.1737079360895; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:02:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGgd1OcTGfQ38Yf7FJ+g8t70UbOVw-LLco28P3t1=J5Mc5j_+A@mail.gmail.com> <CADNypP95mTxt3XJsMbMJ6y9gft5GN20VfqQdwngajW3dtP8SQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADNypP95mTxt3XJsMbMJ6y9gft5GN20VfqQdwngajW3dtP8SQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:02:30 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAGBSGjoTudXgCkApCRvKdZNDHu_US-HwiRHZVmBu=hGfWpeP_w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvbiR3laKL2x6iX8Jw9O_9k5FsvZVbRYTOLkQrHRL4-wlAyj11MmRRevaWg
Message-ID: <CAGBSGjoTudXgCkApCRvKdZNDHu_US-HwiRHZVmBu=hGfWpeP_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000040cb98062bdd4e3e"
Message-ID-Hash: 4OC2NQCX6IWTKGKO4AAUI35XI2XCBBAR
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4OC2NQCX6IWTKGKO4AAUI35XI2XCBBAR
X-MailFrom: aaron@parecki.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-oauth.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps.authors@ietf.org, oauth-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: draft-oauth-browser-based-apps
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/NfqOhNFBBa-f3POlM-BAk_SdjnY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:oauth-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:oauth-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:oauth-leave@ietf.org>

Thanks, I'm working on tracking down stable references for these and will
have a new version published addressing this feedback shortly.

Aaron


On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 6:54 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Section 11:  RFC6819 is a normative reference, but it is Informational.
>> We need to call that out in the IETF Last Call, and I have to approve the
>> downref (which I will do).
>
>
> Looking at the text in the document that references this RFC, it does not
> look like any of these references are normative references.
> I think this should be moved to the informative section.
>
> Regards,
>  Rifaat
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 9:27 AM Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here are the comments on my AD review of this draft.  Most of them will
>> be easy to fix, except for the normative references to changeable
>> standards:
>>
>> General:  There are more than a couple of Normative references that are
>> pointing to 'living documents'.  From my reading of the draft these
>> include:  Cookie Prefixes, Fetch, Web-messaging, service-workers,
>> webstorage. If at all possible, we need to find a way to specify a
>> particular version via commit, snapshot, archive to make an immutable
>> version.  Or find a way to make them Informative.  Basically this draft
>> will be an RFC - immutable, yet a few of the Normative references are
>> changeable.
>>
>> BCP 14 boilerplate:  idnits (a little blue button '! Nits' on the line
>> above the text of the draft on the main datatracker page). is throwing
>> errors on the BCP14 boilerplate.  Ideally, I'd like these fixed before
>> moving this along (it just eliminates problems down the road).
>>
>> Section 6.1.3.2, para 4: '...the BFF SHOULD encrypt its cookie contents.'
>> Why not a MUST?  Under what circumstances would it be reasonable to ignore
>> this SHOULD?
>>
>> Section 6.1.3.2, last para:  Add this to the (Informative) references.
>>
>> Section 6.3.4.2.2, first para:  Add 'CrytoKeyPair' to the (Informative)
>> references.
>>
>> Section 7.4, first para, last sentence:  Nit:  'This restrictions' should
>> either be 'these restrictions' or 'this restriction'.
>>
>> Section 11:  RFC6819 is a normative reference, but it is Informational.
>> We need to call that out in the IETF Last Call, and I have to approve the
>> downref (which I will do).
>>
>> Deb
>> Sec AD for oauth
>>
>