[OAUTH-WG] Review of Assertions drafts

"Anganes, Amanda L" <aanganes@mitre.org> Tue, 06 November 2012 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <aanganes@mitre.org>
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 95B4521F89EE for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:41:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RNUGzExbhfwp for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF7A21F89CA for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C6F6653100C0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:40:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from IMCCAS01.MITRE.ORG (imccas01.mitre.org [129.83.29.78]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7822653100EE for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:40:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from IMCMBX04.MITRE.ORG ([169.254.4.53]) by IMCCAS01.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.68]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:40:59 -0500
From: "Anganes, Amanda L" <aanganes@mitre.org>
To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of Assertions drafts
Thread-Index: Ac28Xk9nIr2tXJNOQqS8h5pHWczTlQ==
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:40:59 +0000
Message-ID: <B61A05DAABADEA4EA2F19424825286FA1E63101F@IMCMBX04.MITRE.ORG>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [129.83.31.52]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B61A05DAABADEA4EA2F19424825286FA1E63101FIMCMBX04MITREOR_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Review of Assertions drafts
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:41:01 -0000

Hannes requested that some folks read through the assertion drafts and give feedback in light of the upcoming shepherd review.

[1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-assertions/
[2] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer/
[3] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer/

I can't speak to the security considerations or advisability of these drafts, but as far as the documents go I think they are well-organized, consistent (internally and across all 3 documents) and straightforward.

A few comments:

[1] Section 4.2.1 says in passing that it is an error condition "if more than one client authentication mechanism is used". If this is a true requirement / error state I think it should be called out more strongly. Perhaps 4.2 should say at the top that "Other client authentication mechanisms MUST NOT be used in conjunction with an assertion".

If so, [2] 3.2 and [3] 3.2 should also indicate that additional client credentials MUST NOT be used in addition to the assertion for Client Authentication.

[3] Section 2.2 first sentence: "client authentication grant" should just be "client authentication".

--Amanda Anganes