Return-Path: 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 E34ED1201A2 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 05:59:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pingidentity.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 NJeYeHBaE3Oe for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 05:59:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 DD21C120048 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2019 05:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id g20so3735685ioc.12 for ; Sat, 06 Jul 2019 05:59:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pingidentity.com; s=gmail; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/h0CSDMfrKNSBLGbBNt64d255e6fPGYsYwC1IrhGmNY=; b=ijuhoyeH4o0mUyPPGws2ffjdg10CAoXggSgRNdGJX8wMWShTbmRIRdE62LI6+Bd7JM OeJbcOjV97Z0rh1yZMTQyntQj1FfAJZSrZ1EaWnJQNZgxhPq39KY/gcuoSTXEQz900go 1PV3ObTJMtumKJvWEiglwwUJQfPtdjljxPSlM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/h0CSDMfrKNSBLGbBNt64d255e6fPGYsYwC1IrhGmNY=; b=QjJBd64cBpvbXgZzWi6fcGPm9Z4gzWQUmdRP4/56wW8Tklp6RSxJCFZnr+bsBaZQQ8 wnzs2hdk+3Wswk6lA7XB16/cpLYxuQEAzhukzNCPe7+qHtueK50tTqUeiYD3u+Dt3A2b /ofvxspQr31aIKN5No36PpDi1SW0VzJ+77YjOZlAZj5QZXjymBS6e4jd6b8NII//ZrxU c0APd8H5nd4d1Z8gqg5M/dpDpK5vMgPgfIKZuBgXK8L52moLJOn79DU9DpHem/hILT2f mirb7hYzeGqYBO69uQOG7Tz0U2ODKYGmBCPT8+FgYaNh6EN/oSeLwaJfoopBlV4zXYpW NfOw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbgxPJlksHcAm3/iq+eYku89TeOf0meYsjmYsmkhHsObB1ne8T Vi+NXgNV9dZ+i/VC8fusgRVWR1aX7uBUsIvrKgYMxOt2P9W7RdTA0c2XXGrDIuUKfY2XVSgecCz CUK5BWrgmeE10Ig== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzoklKXePlRNFBm4EpEHwudloxuc+CDtP09ySH/etpseRPqij3sXZpKx2TJUtyxU09NMOJ+PKr7T9OfWLbnT+Y= X-Received: by 2002:a02:a07:: with SMTP id 7mr10389867jaw.65.1562417996097; Sat, 06 Jul 2019 05:59:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <156238540273.21781.4146676340197499618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <156238540273.21781.4146676340197499618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Brian Campbell Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:59:30 -0400 Message-ID: To: Benjamin Kaduk Cc: The IESG , oauth , draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange@ietf.org, oauth-chairs@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a60494058d02c947" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-17: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: OAUTH WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 13:00:00 -0000 --000000000000a60494058d02c947 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Ben, I'll publish an -18 shortly with these suggestions. A bit more detail is inline below. On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:57 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm balloting Yes; this document is solid and well-written. Thanks! I do have a > few additional (largely editorial) suggestions and a question or two, > though. > > Section 2.1 > > The client makes a token exchange request to the token endpoint with > an extension grant type using the HTTP "POST" method and including > the following parameters using the "application/x-www-form- > urlencoded" format with a character encoding of UTF-8 in the HTTP > request entity-body as described in Appendix B of RFC6749 [RFC6749]. > > This is a really long sentence. I see how it got that way, and the RFC > Editor staff will probably have some thoughts on how to reword it, but > if you happen to have thoughts as well, feel free to have at it. > I had at it a little bit and broke it up into two sentences. > > Section 2.2.1 > > expires_in > RECOMMENDED. The validity lifetime, in seconds, of the token > issued by the authorization server. Oftentimes the client will > not have the inclination or capability to inspect the content of > the token and this parameter provides a consistent and token type > agnostic indication of how long the token can be expected to be > valid. For example, the value 1800 denotes that the token will > > nit: hyphenate "token-type-agnostic". > done > Section 4.4 > > Refresh my memory: did we already have a discussion about may_act as an > object vs. an array of objects? > Not to my recollection. I'm honestly not even sure what an array would mean for "may_act". Do you mean for "act"? I suppose an array of objects could be used as the value of "act" as a way to express a chain of delegation. However, the object with optional nesting seemed (to me) a more natural way to express it and has no overhead for the likely most common case of just a single actor. > > Section 5 > > I'd consider also mentioning/linking the OAuth 2.0 security > considerations -- the fact that the STS is colocated with the token > endpoint takes care of ensuring a lot of its security properties. > Makes sense. I'll add that. And refs to RFC6819 and draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics to round it out. > Section 7 > > It's common (but not required, since it will not be relevant upon > publication as an RFC) to note that the indicated values are reflected > in early allocations from the indicated IANA registries. In this case > I'd say "don't bother"... > Not bothering... > Appendix B > > Uh-oh, now we are up to five security ADs that have been around for this > document... > an oversight on my part and unfortunate reminder about just how long this document has been in progress. I'll add Roman. --=20 _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged= =20 material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,=20 distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.=C2=A0 If you h= ave=20 received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately= =20 by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your=20 computer. Thank you._ --000000000000a60494058d02c947 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Ben, I'll publish an -18 shortly with thes= e suggestions. A bit more detail is inline below.

=
On Fri= , Jul 5, 2019 at 11:57 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm balloting Yes; this document is solid and well-written.

Thanks!
=C2=A0

=C2=A0 I do have a
few additional (largely editorial) suggestions and a question or two,
though.

Section 2.1

=C2=A0 =C2=A0The client makes a token exchange request to the token endpoin= t with
=C2=A0 =C2=A0an extension grant type using the HTTP "POST" method= and including
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the following parameters using the "application/x-www-for= m-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0urlencoded" format with a character encoding of UTF-8 in = the HTTP
=C2=A0 =C2=A0request entity-body as described in Appendix B of RFC6749 [RFC= 6749].

This is a really long sentence.=C2=A0 I see how it got that way, and the RF= C
Editor staff will probably have some thoughts on how to reword it, but
if you happen to have thoughts as well, feel free to have at it.

I had at it a little bit and broke it up into two= sentences.

=C2=A0

Section 2.2.1

=C2=A0 =C2=A0expires_in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 RECOMMENDED.=C2=A0 The validity lifetime, in seconds, = of the token
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 issued by the authorization server.=C2=A0 Oftentimes t= he client will
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 not have the inclination or capability to inspect the = content of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 the token and this parameter provides a consistent and= token type
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 agnostic indication of how long the token can be expec= ted to be
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 valid.=C2=A0 For example, the value 1800 denotes that = the token will

nit: hyphenate "token-type-agnostic".

done
=C2=A0


Section 4.4

Refresh my memory: did we already have a discussion about may_act as an
object vs. an array of objects?

Not to = my recollection. I'm honestly not even sure what an array would mean fo= r "may_act". Do you mean for "act"? I suppose an array = of objects could be used as the value of "act" as a way to expres= s a chain of delegation. However, the object with optional nesting seemed (= to me) a more natural way to express it and has no overhead for the likely = most common case of just a single actor.


=
=C2=A0

Section 5

I'd consider also mentioning/linking the OAuth 2.0 security
considerations -- the fact that the STS is colocated with the token
endpoint takes care of ensuring a lot of its security properties.

Makes sense. I'll add that. And refs to RFC6= 819 and draft-ietf-oauth-security-topics to round it out.
= =C2=A0


Appendix B

Uh-oh, now we are up to five security ADs that have been around for this document...

<sigh> an oversight o= n my part and unfortunate reminder about just how long this document has be= en in progress.

I'll add Roman.




<= span style=3D"margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:= baseline;background:transparent;font-family:proxima-nova-zendesk,system-ui,= -apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ub= untu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue",Arial,sans-serif;font-weight:600"= >CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidenti= al and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). A= ny review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited= .=C2=A0 If you have received this communication in error, please notify the= sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachmen= ts from your computer. Thank you. --000000000000a60494058d02c947--