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

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Thu, 18 May 2017 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 4AF681293EE for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 11:55:58 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ve7jtb-com.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 Wruw_z2ceXOi for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 11:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22b.google.com (mail-pg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]) (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 DF4BB129B2B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 11:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id u187so26827356pgb.0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 11:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ve7jtb-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=N6+vWs7BNWUi+mMO9/1uSNxnirUkasqDkbUV+eIofyo=; b=ITP5MjCYF584JHk1qR77//OSg1UfeRcME1Oe4ZVk1FkWeAT7G3gqu2dJ9PqK/3Pz6a BzQiODzJMnHqZv1+5Tu/LQFjP7xcDlEj5TPv34oXZaAfcch/o5bUQlcH/dlv4iHP+K7W KzceIYqGnAjVcJZFk7Iqgjg7VwRg+7PV1rKPrSQh814fd9pLIqmAaWzLHjHMeFtmif9Q V05246J/vktdpXRpjwBeJRVgW72gs40y0qOTD/l73C7LP+pyhg2tTudL7fwdmBNlp3HR 6ZPkH23LkEF4dGWjQ4WAk8rwNwwTbNwAaA2hcUqx9jfqw2a6V51bfKK5hqDnXD241koM MpJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=N6+vWs7BNWUi+mMO9/1uSNxnirUkasqDkbUV+eIofyo=; b=hWHJtC1swPGu4Il0vQddZikaM+ntlGiSw2/6bJOIcdK4uTgA85jkcroDeoepTL77IF t2U9P/8XBCmDU8NX/m1JVWKSEeHimxwyE6RKdfIfQ4hEtec3O8DGKOROO8/2fJZfd8lB eCH3oVDTZp1Kmi6ct+83bx20cRNRFDx43BwOF2StzZ0cusFwrNRVlnWU8iekruOMTj3U DerOl+nBxDOF2H3co/irMlt2TpseNSrUKJWsXSt/iUOPdxEId4IeAY/fpFKMSnRV4w9b QTXfnT6JKUAe+p/7soheD45PaWMmxWAI+BjTfw2uhVFJ9gPzF2OhH+wv1ysjD7VZUCIn /aSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCiySpu0cZLTjpUgRA2kUnNGn4sVDw+rZ/zLnaiBE4LhA7aeVbI NMAJ7lWRT9kkir/9
X-Received: by 10.98.90.199 with SMTP id o190mr983782pfb.185.1495133436304; Thu, 18 May 2017 11:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MWHPR19MB1085.namprd19.prod.outlook.com ([40.97.141.109]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p84sm11211904pfi.25.2017.05.18.11.50.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 18 May 2017 11:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
CC: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps
Thread-Index: AXdnWnky8DIFdWBESMY4VjWdM1kiRmctUDV3UTVaRy13VWZZOa1TmT23
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 2
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:48:36 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR19MB108559BA79F3460C01F54E40FAE40@MWHPR19MB1085.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAHbuEH5Pa2-K7Y+w0neyVOLBxn4XfZifiNfc6rvgAVN5nBZGpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAP42hCC2w1NXKnx8BX5dGY5jec_XPt39_2=Pi=-0HGznOZROg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbuEH4Hn-z1d2xssGLGzTY-8FYkwZch=Cf53ch51H4wg6aseQ@mail.gmail.com>, <CAHbuEH7Zn9tGNS57Z4rYLFqPqbQuXf9z7B0n2voUsFawHVNZFw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH7Zn9tGNS57Z4rYLFqPqbQuXf9z7B0n2voUsFawHVNZFw@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="94eb2c03b00a611b96054fd0e1a2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/1RXu9Iv55Vb0a-YJBIupqrXAuVE>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps
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: Thu, 18 May 2017 18:55:58 -0000

William and I just discussed it and the goal is to get a new draft out addressing those comments today or tomorrow.

John B.


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Kathleen Moriarty<mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: May 18, 2017 2:14 PM
To: William Denniss<mailto:wdenniss@google.com>
Cc: oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps

Hi,

Will there be a new document posted today/tomorrow to address last
call comments/the GenART review?  I'd like to add the ballot for the
IESG review and telechat next week, , but it would be best on the
updated draft to avoid duplicate comments.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
<kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> Hi William,
>
> Thank you for making the updates.  Just a few notes inline and I'll
> kick off IETF last call.
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:50 PM, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>; wrote:
>> Thank you for your review Kathleen.
>>
>> Version 10 which addresses your comments is out:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-10
>>
>> Replies inline:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
>> <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>; 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.
>>
>>
>> Good idea, I think that will help with the readability a lot. I have moved
>> the "Embedded User-Agent" section to the end, and clarified the purpose.
>>
>> The reason it's included at all, is that OAuth itself documents two ways to
>> do native OAuth. This document recommends only one of those ways, and I
>> thought that detailing why the other way is no longer best-practice would be
>> helpful to readers.
>
> Great, thank you.
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I think I may have mis-read https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-6.1.
>> There is an example of a document that has no IANA actions but still
>> provides a justification for why that is the case, but in that example it
>> uses a non-IANA registry unlike this BCP.
>>
>> In our case, we are definitely operating in an IANA-controlled namespace,
>> but using a private section of the namespace designed for that purpose.  The
>> intent was to point out that we are following IANA guidelines correctly.
>> Happy to remove it (or indicate that it should be removed during
>> publication) if it seems superfluous.
>>
>> For now, in the latest update I have clearly stated "This document has no
>> IANA actions.", but retained the discussion.
>>
>
> Sounds good, thank you!
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Yes, they are. In the definition section, "app" is defined as "shorthand for
>> native app". Is that OK, or should I revise?
>
> I missed that, but if it's defined, then you are covered.  Thanks.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I have migrated to use URI exclusively, other than 2 references to URL where
>> I'm referring to platform-specific naming / colloquialisms.
>>
>> I also changed instances of "custom URI scheme" to "private-use URI scheme",
>> the latter being the terminology used by RFC7595.
>
> Perfect, thanks.  The point in asking was just for other reviews that
> will follow.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I believe this is addressed now.
>>
>>> Section 8.11
>>> s/uri/URI/
>>>
> Thank you.
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>> Best,
>> William
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Kathleen
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen



--

Best regards,
Kathleen

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth