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

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 16 January 2025 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rifaat.s.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 4BE4FC1DC800; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 06:54:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 UNcPHWvwTsPO; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 06:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 C0505C1DA2DA; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 06:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-540215984f0so1157260e87.1; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 06:54:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1737039272; x=1737644072; 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=ypo+enPQ6SrQ7NQN/XZzdgFHujyT6rRM35V1jvi6bc4=; b=XCbK1V/l6IeTtFGGU3oei5rNcCrMz1TDXhIH60rOZCxqJfLAav2l3D+5ySYwIrhSds Rr76zJNOKHAPkNIE2hGqX07Rc1zL5idfTtI5tczXtH3gd4kjoxT8kRhEnPR+ucnFNlgY L7dXQSwAzT9Hz0M2MkLRaPacXkz3xY3wf3kShpWdCeDncbVoyqhIgxHsuo/j+VTFYEKR 52Fdgk7zaWPhQvl8HgSUhRTSqAZ+v+SM6hFVVlejzHU411Wmrb9cYvwfbuZzr3+ds/E/ sQptOASyumJEBq028ROXGFA5xihlJP55VdxZDqTn2SWvYR7r7tSbJJhXgwkp2+GmW8ut 0KTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1737039272; x=1737644072; 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=ypo+enPQ6SrQ7NQN/XZzdgFHujyT6rRM35V1jvi6bc4=; b=Awjp4Px1yq47q7wpyO7z0l92oxEDpyiNACtcU5nQyxACKWD7NDCsyUGDU+qc/kkuKf +jZ+HTL2XIzFHZG0gB828uLyluxo3k21eg22WPtQBVJ3O81QskM270nLWQjX+ou++trX mkhmd+OBoakPJhaA2GR4IfsMzX6wu0+eNxpnN5wQgOCyULuyXZ0EBwdFY+fKXQWkey2X eIXydOXy40D2/08ThlfXS2/rWmG1meTMv10vyGtbqnBeMKFSiOg3eJm8ZE2VZJ+ylnoF MyqH9AMs8+3JhdQlrxTeZ6uGbcWYbzNCjPMmojPzzmQ5x/N8i9yJcXdCJgVgfi939bca TunA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWeOVmggcwCV+bOKZFoJXl/bY9XkR8DENBTJUqSGjevTada6QVzDIdkW44oBSCrZQlDiz/tRNXjkEWQUUrFxok9F8TgS1XHT3izATVtQcVvkd6EG6Lb/tG6t3GE@ietf.org, AJvYcCXh8W782s3A8n6dBzcqR9sv54gOeBRTc/dGB7wZSdCd1QPgntUBcoSEhHGytFRXkKdJD5twn+mI1FCQJJ+S@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw61ZqFrbYeSUrJp57l/5Q0+snc3oBLdKtMB1UKwY8VZBYDMwPX J0VaoVKe06AYr43wCgb7LTTPtnwL983sX72HTSwXPV1EQRaXlrLaytx+k2LnGhdI99NC4cJ3wlq hyk36Py6F3Zy0Kv76ukoKyt9gofo=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvANBj5+c4NiuMua7vGrzX4VVPn8o093h9qkh2TQcf57uMnHqUR8dOQuTZgkqm Ulb2NicG8VppsJJeYG5UM/Q5wULFASveeVjYWgvjn
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFdRV8SPeFXVw5xhRu1jPOH1O5okFKna2h1DSIWawmwE75ep+KCL566+Ri6nG9JFiUQrx5IDch7qzx0nL5Jj4M=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:68b:b0:53f:231e:6fa2 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-542845d73e1mr10891137e87.26.1737039272248; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 06:54:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGgd1OcTGfQ38Yf7FJ+g8t70UbOVw-LLco28P3t1=J5Mc5j_+A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGgd1OcTGfQ38Yf7FJ+g8t70UbOVw-LLco28P3t1=J5Mc5j_+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:54:20 -0500
X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvapCyd50mUjVdoA_h5aZfe2u6s2nXWkuJ8K1c8-Ns0io86DvkerY21EW2o
Message-ID: <CADNypP95mTxt3XJsMbMJ6y9gft5GN20VfqQdwngajW3dtP8SQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c88fa2062bd3f8d4"
Message-ID-Hash: XNWJLLNIIFINUTBLZHVDWMUDFNACP3XM
X-Message-ID-Hash: XNWJLLNIIFINUTBLZHVDWMUDFNACP3XM
X-MailFrom: rifaat.s.ietf@gmail.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/Xq8KP2FTeVsFbh2ws2o95nwtpsw>
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>

>
> 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
>