Re: [OAUTH-WG] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: (with COMMENT)

William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com> Fri, 02 June 2017 01:41 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 0FA7A12949D for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 HxwDnh6MABgC for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (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 B062F12948F for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id m47so4555409iti.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 18:41:49 -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=tZ8v/OB5Mj16Vm81ZSuhklSBV/bPhbXCUO4yqseMywA=; b=dhOKEXZnETijS+i5CKoTag/Tp/+ynLT7hnBoE+P36eBMKwVWqpW6exPfycj7sQuCOr A4DbZC3ygPc3zkmtip0mOPy9/e59FPBz8e3Q4YQq2bEiUqlml243vetRdC0EqWaOfy1f /b8oTaqM+CyuyIMpVjxOrWLI8nDVUk6iLN+sxmYhY360tKv5jX0WpQ8B4kQ1zAcLnzVV 2xy8d4a3dCugTD1brbBgDolHwzHjFWpNfLCMpDTkJ2rZvCah4dEGmPvVDX1koXIRY3Og Aew3Ieg3kzPWvjM4Z2h8UchnGW1kZXBDk7uwQYsEJgWDUM2tz8g+Q4l3sqvnq70o6jBm SZ+Q==
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=tZ8v/OB5Mj16Vm81ZSuhklSBV/bPhbXCUO4yqseMywA=; b=If+N/h2vInQeZEk9Ieudi3FFab0O8SOetPKzoEwZHzW1frlou4Lm9LRPrf4J83fRb7 TFC+Fz1/cnFCNe6KTZdkS0Y6Y2Eet5MdEAHqxTsjV4gDPNTsftflGqah8nSlYsmvb864 WMee1U6dVTFIAu/N4WQ5CU+99JB1hlptf1fEfnQJxy5ETwlwFbt3VZNHecz3Afv0CIGG HF4QnZ8NlSakeXp4X09Zahxwtvy1Ti7Iwu18evXWRoGCd2HsIcoYfN1ZP2sGuHsOW7DN Inxfwcp/Mx9T5suZCW65Ccr+U/fgEOJMa0PwKNBOsCKRUqSlnlTF/3a5i55k/iI/Acn/ Sigw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDTo4ZCN+zVMm+gdxjiwt4Z1eDJFrQFtCvxdW46iM/mNWkleLKg i13u1gTb4crkgwGfmnQ83An593z9b4wy
X-Received: by 10.36.23.22 with SMTP id 22mr2397445ith.78.1496367708782; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 18:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.35.37 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1495642815.971519.987329656.342C84A9@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <149563962282.28554.14590140614058686244.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+k3eCTOQx6Tnnk2n41GUROsD-LaOz2WwP+i=tqZGbBvR1twvQ@mail.gmail.com> <1495642815.971519.987329656.342C84A9@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:41:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAP42hAeV=i7nnBT-kCmxqtAm-pdrzh2_ricZRNUAbBoA9EEaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Cc: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps@ietf.org, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143e36abc97d70550f04130"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/peflG26kDVic3VdUN8VJvXWGw74>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: (with COMMENT)
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, 02 Jun 2017 01:41:52 -0000

Thanks Alexey and Brian.

In my staged
<https://github.com/WilliamDenniss/draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps/pull/9/files>
copy, I've added a reference to RFC7230, which according to IANA
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml> holds the
definition of the https scheme.  Will be included in the next update.

I also verified that our Section 2 includes "NOT RECOMMENDED" per the
errata.




On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On Wed, May 24, 2017, at 05:17 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell, 'NOT RECOMMENDED' is fine per RFC 2119.
>
>
> from https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>
> 4. SHOULD NOT   This phrase, *or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED"* mean that
>    there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
>    particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
>    implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
>    before implementing any behavior described with this label.
>
> And also this errata notes that NOT RECOMMENDED should be in the first part of the abstract https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2119&eid=499
>
>
> Never mind then!
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A couple of nits:
>
> 8.2.  OAuth Implicit Grant Authorization Flow
>
>    The OAuth 2.0 implicit grant authorization flow as defined in
>    Section 4.2 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] generally works with the practice
>    of performing the authorization request in the browser, and
> receiving
>    the authorization response via URI-based inter-app communication.
>    However, as the Implicit Flow cannot be protected by PKCE (which is
> a
>    required in Section 8.1), the use of the Implicit Flow with native
>    apps is NOT RECOMMENDED.
>
> NOT RECOMMENDED is not actually a construct allowed by RFC 2119, I think
> you should reword it using "SHOULD NOT".
>
> It would be good to add RFC reference for HTTPS URIs.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
>