[OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 28 October 2016 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.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 9BD7B1293FE for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 qhDnJ3JIknrF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x229.google.com (mail-ua0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::229]) (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 CD2991204D9 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 12so61600799uas.2 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/i3bPMTWwvONxh7JQLdyDNUqB9GQEhI+MQP34qzRs4A=; b=pbZVSQN1uIO8ypVblamBmzAUCqPY1ZxZVa1B+VWTMEfLLRGxunTaJPAZTXPOE+pdXo NvP6LPn7tTaUZiWgozcI62mKv0f1BHyxglojHpvoyJod00rCgxdhNGGV7C/4IQz6s3r1 fmCC0MFjDZfyuUbWX5Rd3Nf8d7Kp385wb08cQR+EWe+kMN5hOUDbqEXxQzkoJDpHt6fc 2xATHpcj8G4Gsa1mAl2rPK714t/4Kkw9ScBoAuGREYWTzdXrUkaLF6flFiuSUq/4auaN Rs18DG8Fm6WSs29/WP7Ojv66RXoPG+fmCKUIrGMnuhlwGMoqfY/Hm501yRfVHV18AFDK HVYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/i3bPMTWwvONxh7JQLdyDNUqB9GQEhI+MQP34qzRs4A=; b=dRb2Cl2MHIyWh64Hnwa+rDC+Z+t/QWtI40yalNsLkGy5lNKOP7lIX/ANKQ9Kn1LXBF kbOWmmR1i1+9ED+KivlfWK8hZ4HZ02y8c5zUvJbieyMjLjl3QWIO3Cuz44PgcDKRMNYQ GXPo52lanh1jCBHX836SAbOO4iNkBBNiGOq0TC4pi/tXQlGNfYn9sQzd10wekZoA1KwR OYNU5Ko1bTNdLaXhWcnNPXb5Fhv7oM+Y1wEaf4SSD3rP/0zD6iTZAGnRH8+AM0HcewLw 3P+fHzB4vhmVHMwRBGCYCowA3Y/V1CTUXmkgXwORA8hUha7bppxQ6YL2wf9hIs1RxC2I sknw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvd3fZxNxPyOTxZeBKoJAQd8ra3sLR22RsRpfDoDEgCTUbU28NuPJvPd3sQFDJsDY10pLVmqhy60Tx0IQA==
X-Received: by 10.176.0.180 with SMTP id 49mr14011559uaj.32.1477680642615; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.82.143 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:50:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbuEH7UtRgV42jEr62yjR9zkLvSzRqSwUDT_EDHmuaMSjuYBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113dc416cb6fc4053ff155ef"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/TJc50a7hrIuDdpLBAi3xDfPA3VY>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 28 Oct 2016 18:59:50 -0000

Hello,

I reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values and have a few comments.  First,
thanks for your work on this draft!

Several of the authentication methods mentioned are typically used (or
recommended for use) as a second or third factor.  I see in section 3 that
multiple methods can be contained in the claim.  I'd like to see an example
of single and multiple authentication methods being represented.  Was it a
WG decision to leave out examples?

In the Privacy considerations section, I think it should be made clear that
the actual credentials are not part of this specification to avoid
additional privacy concerns for biometric data.

Section 5, shouldn't a pointer be here to the attacks on OAuth 2.0 as well?


Thank you.
-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen