Re: [Unbearable] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi, thanks for the pointer.

The text in version 18 is sufficient to clear my discuss. I have one remaining (or maybe new) non-blocking question for section 6:

Are the “applications” from paragraph 3 the same as those from paragraph 2? It seems like paragraph 2 is talking more about local APIs (at least, I see that was mentioned in the text in version 17 but not in 18), but paragraph 3 uses an example of a signal from a server. (I can accept that the difference in control may be weak enough for web applications that the distinction does not matter.)

I did not check my editorial comments.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Jun 25, 2018, at 6:30 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Ben,
> 
> Does the following new text address your concern:
> https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?modeAsFormat=html/ascii&url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TokenBinding/Internet-Drafts/master/draft-ietf-tokbind-https-18.xml
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Dirk Balfanz <balfanz=[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> thanks for the feedback. Most of it is addressed in the new draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tokbind-https-16) See below (inline) for details.
> 
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:38 PM Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: Discuss
> 
> 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-tokbind-https/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I plan to ballot "YES", but I want to clear up once concern first:
> 
> After reading section 6 several times, I don't know what it means. I think it's [...]
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Substantive Comments:
> 
> §1.1: Please consider using the boilerplate from 8174 across the cluster. Both
> this and the protocol draft have lower case keyword instances.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §8.2:
> - Does it really make sense to wait for a user to request the keys be expired?
> I suspect the average user does this about never. Did the working group discuss
> possibly making the keys default to expiring after some period of time?
> 
> Yes, we did discuss it. This was chosen consciously to be in sync with cookies and their expirations / manual user-initiated purges.
> 
> - Why
> is the SHOULD in paragraph 2 not a MUST?
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> Editorial Comments:
> 
> §2:
> - Paragraph 1: "The ABNF of the Sec-Token-Binding header field is (in [RFC7230]
> style, see also Section 8.3 of [RFC7231]):" The open parenthesis before "in"
> seems misplaced. Also, as written the comma after "style" creates a comma
> splice. (Note that this pattern occurs elsewhere in the document.)
> 
> - Paragraph 3: The paragraph is a single hard-to-parse sentence. Please
> consider breaking into simpler sentences.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> - example: Am I correct to assume the backslashes are just for print purposes
> and are not in the actual message? If so, please mention that.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> § 2.1:
> - first paragraph, "Within the latter context...": There was no former context.
> I suggest "Within that context..."
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> - 2nd paragraph: The first sentence is hard
> to parse. I suggest breaking it into separate paragraphs, or restructure
> without the center-imbedding.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> - 2nd to last paragraph: Does "SHOULD generally"
> mean the same as just "SHOULD"?
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §5.1: 2nd paragraph: Unneeded comma in "... itself, to another server..."
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §5.2,
> - last bullet: " (between client and Token Consumer)" seems more than
> parenthetical. Please consider removing the parentheses.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> - paragraph after last
> bullet: The parenthetical phrase starting with "(proving possession...) is
> quite long and makes the sentence hard to parse. Given that the concept is
> covered in the immediately preceding paragraph, can it be removed?
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §7.1 and §7.2: These sections seem to be copied from (or restate requirements
> in) the protocol and negotiation drafts. Can they be included by reference
> instead, or at least attributed?
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §7.2, 2nd paragraph: This seams like a restatement of §7.1.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> 
> §8.3: Unneeded comma in first sentence.
> 
> Addressed in new draft.
> 
> Thanks again for the thoughtful comments!
> 
> Dirk.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unbearable mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unbearable
> 
>