Re: [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-06
William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com> Fri, 13 October 2017 22:22 UTC
Return-Path: <wdenniss@google.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 89396132811 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 odZPgVBvjw3l for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (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 EF5FD13219F for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 1so22260407qtn.3 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YT8BKTYZeYknPGOyEeczfENJGx9PIlNLbz89ZoxrcCc=; b=sVQ663jk9/P1rYSB7hoy1USAimcfKrJmgeUhXTNunxyZO/Q4/727fNNr9mnAXslKvE PeEXknAejhBmwG9iXieMpDpiWfDNpYC93ljRWHfAE+stQy9mVp3MsH6BpozLpl3keM3U 8M5Hy/BnEA9EByke3Pp2GqLImELErfR8JXjyojhO61ehSJcvq98bCduIKG1fXMCFVe6L sXDFU2kEQc7138sZae5V9Z85W2/fWVnxXzAxYNLEwSDregxJ+NgD1Qa/AMGx6LKePGKK lpTx23XG556XBA7LjuRRJWL57qpZrm5bq5kXO49G+ItLf2yx64TQoARh+oqrM2+Ds06f ZAQA==
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=YT8BKTYZeYknPGOyEeczfENJGx9PIlNLbz89ZoxrcCc=; b=jnnhJt1gV47UeervdGG95dtzGj9fSkbqiZ0nxo1v6uUXQa3paeAeMNCbgGBe7bmAJQ USh9DQeC3gUhD3HetfMKPCXVzc5omk/gHJEY6ANAHUzyGfBst8rNWPabr3tKjkAdcAOH +KKM6WH5vl1sgDLgzoAwTZLDlbxNrQvsl0RKgJAsc2+ibSZbPN+sznRIR6gOI0M2tbhv lI59jfWe+L6XrVMSLVLaC0TvLWQzfeO0aRPJsH1EqUsj1zBVm33ZpgSZrkCWrX3QRpeU 1pS3DmrD2NzcyQZSgSW34EfpTAzU78PywskhJPgiXdXcy7aTsYDPMQ5VT+bCsFRjqMaJ NmXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXu3Ze3yzWe5iTWNqb5JA7rUBxAk8Qn/PU2SfjitgeJq6USxxOe 5EWd6ceGrIJgtB3TThVlwtrduqOpUfo53HZmz2dpk/ICiqQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAcQcH0IPatYNh0/UQqKALKL0g0yuvtE/KVh7ks7ViqD8yVQEjW6ZGfXxJfz2bpATm8DVMwLJb/4yfVLTiL9KQ=
X-Received: by 10.129.65.76 with SMTP id f12mr1863900ywk.274.1507933331671; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.122.72 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAF2hCbbLr88b97ic1zdrsWtVh-7hFonfFf+E8iEKZxUp1_fhLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF2hCbbLr88b97ic1zdrsWtVh-7hFonfFf+E8iEKZxUp1_fhLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:21:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAP42hDLtRZNpTpy=o418iqmmAa7_nZ3BM2t0iS49FrAo0EpHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se>
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow.authors@ietf.org, "<oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045e764c94d603055b751663"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/WNfoh06LpW-XoY42qpk21NWMJFE>
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 22:22:15 -0000
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Samuel Erdtman <samuel@erdtman.se> wrote: > Hi Authors > > Thanks for writing this very useful draft. > Hi Samuel, Thanks for reviewing the 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. > (D) is referenced in (E), I believe it's intentional. I'll expand the reference to "(step D)" to make that clear. > ‘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’ > I'll discuss this with my co-authors, could make sense. > > 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. > There is no client authentication as they are public clients. This is covered in the security consideration "Non-confidential Clients". As draft is nearly ready to publish, I don't think we should take a reference on an I-D that would delay our publication. > > 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). > This type of use-case is mentioned in the section "Non-Browser User Interaction" if you own both the server and the client – you can really do whatever you like as it doesn't need to be interoperable. If this spec is useful for that case – great, but I don't think we need to discuss or cater for this more than we have. > 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. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-07 can be used for programmatic discovery of the token URL (and we add to that in the section "Discovery Metadata"). > > 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. > See above. > > 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. > The next version <https://github.com/WilliamDenniss/draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow/pull/5/files> clarifies this a bit. PTAL. > > 3.5. Device Access Token Response > I think last paragraph is better suited in the introduction section. > I'm on the fence about this suggestion, as that paragraph does relate token polling. > > 5.2. Device Trustworthiness > I think device authentication should/could be mentioned here > "Non-confidential Clients" covers that. Best, William
- [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