IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 17 July 2012 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 7031B21F86C9; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1g97t7x-maX; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.scss.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7097A21F866E; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4071714E2; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:12:24 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1342523543; bh=wMGtZOQgJFHYz8 HsJTO7fW2tkQ95OEeEhhfPCdZGQVQ=; b=ZbhLWU6djSVdePSvkh+C7/Ixov6PSh yZO/14jcytIvYXGZc1D8V912akUuZDwhPDe9Z037B3t8wpPfDLVPcYnTurX/8wgY /rs7LHnl3UJ4kirlXvW5yTvNJLEUpQtrwj1gv6EfkXx2msp/akk6PV4ZMZPOIK0K cI6niUZumitYfPAbm7Ehi9JPQvAzZqppZMnc1LaTzOujZwEj5njGAqw7NppQWvuq iTziE0tveY8ssx6dtunSJvHPVYlrOop+RgRhxJLD1uc2A6ho9SqXWy2Tx/yNyP31 tf8vIy4htx3p+oSRJ7g59nz4Si8RwTGAgiKO/QI16fndRbr+1ZwdfhSw==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id 0LMrt-N5eVSw; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:12:23 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.11] (unknown [86.45.63.34]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6BA61714C4; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:12:23 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <50054897.3070108@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:12:23 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.all@tools.ietf.org>
References: <4F2575CE.9040001@isode.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436638B7AD@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4F27C37C.1090008@isode.com> <4F843A22.4020908@isode.com> <4F843DA1.8080703@isode.com> <500546C5.6080102@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <500546C5.6080102@isode.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-22.txt
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, 17 Jul 2012 11:11:39 -0000

Folks. Please don't develop any new revisions for these
documents right now. I know you can't officially post
'em anyway, but I don't want us to get tempted to roll
new versions handling unrelated comments. (Alexey's
comments are not unrelated.)

I'd like to handle any tweaks needed as RFC editor notes
if possible.

S

On 07/17/2012 12:04 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I am still Ok with -22, but I have 1 new comment raised by introduction
> of the base64 ABNF non terminal:
> 
> I think it would be worth adding a comment for b64token that points to
> the base64 RFC. The current ABNF is too permissive (arbitrary number of
> "=" allowed at the end) and there are enough broken base64 parsers
> around (parsers that ignore everything after a "=", parsers that support
> arbitrary number of "=" at the end, etc.), so we shouldn't encourage
> creation of new ones.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email