[OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-proof-of-possession

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you all for your work on this draft!  I just have a few questions:

1. Security considerations section says:

"All of the normal security issues, especially in relationship to
   comparing URIs and dealing with unrecognized values, that are
   discussed in JWT [JWT] also apply here."

I find that to be odd phrasing that would likely be picked up in
subsequent reviews.  Please remove the word "normal" so that all of
the security issues discusses in JWT are included.  Are there other
'normal considerations in addition to those in JWT that need to be
listed?  The phrasing reads as if that may the case and would be
better to include them all or pointers or change the phrasing.

2. Also in the security considerations section,

   "A recipient may not understand the newly introduced "cnf" claim and
   may consequently treat it as a bearer token."

What is the proper handling requirement when an unknown claim is
present?  Section 3.1 says:
  "When a recipient receives a "cnf" claim with a
   member that it does not understand, it MUST ignore that member."

Is this why it is treated as a bearer token rather than being
rejected?  Is this really the action you want to see with cnf?  Why
isn't there an error and a resend as a bearer token so that parties
understand (or have an opportunity to understand) that there were
issues?

Then the following text in the security section says:
  "While this is a
   legitimate concern, it is outside the scope of this specification,
   since demonstration the possession of the key associated with the
   "cnf" claim is not covered by this specification. For more details,

How is this outside of the scope of this draft?  cnf is defined in
this draft, so handling should be covered in this draft.  A pointer to
the POP architecture draft is not helpful as it is not defined there,
it's covered int his draft.  Should this text just be removed and
replaced with more explicit handling information int he body of this
draft?

Thanks!

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen