Kathleen, thanks for your review. Responses inline.

On Nov 19, 2014, at 9:56 PM, Kathleen Moriarty 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:

Hi,

I reviewed draft-Ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-20 and have the following questions before 
we move this to IETF last call.

Sect 2, Has there been any consideration in the WG of using alternate auth 
methods from HTTPAuth like HOBA?  I realize this is referencing Oauth defined 
methods from the framework draft, but would like to know what was considered or 
not.  HOBA is heading to IETF last call soon.

Nobody brought up HOBA in this working group. This field is intentionally 
extensible, so if there's interest in defining how to use HOBA for OAuth client 
authentication it will make a perfectly reasonable extension document.


Section 6:  why is there a choice on TLS?  I'd recommend you make it require 
1.2 unless there is a really compelling argument to have that must as either 
1.2 or 1.0

We copied this text straight from RFC6749. I know that a similar section exists 
in JWS with updated language, and we could adopt that directly here:


   Which TLS version(s) ought to be implemented will
   vary over time, and depend on the widespread deployment and known
   security vulnerabilities at the time of implementation.  At the time
   of this writing, TLS version 1.2 
[RFC5246<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246>] is the most recent
   version.

   To protect against information disclosure and tampering,
   confidentiality protection MUST be applied using TLS with a
   ciphersuite that provides confidentiality and integrity protection.
   See current publications by the IETF TLS working group, including 
RFC<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6176>
   6176<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6176> 
[RFC6176<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6176>], for guidance on the 
ciphersuites currently considered
   to be appropriate for use.  Also, see Recommendations for Secure Use
   of TLS and DTLS 
[I-D.ietf-uta-tls-bcp<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-37#ref-I-D.ietf-uta-tls-bcp>]
 for recommendations on
   improving the security of software and services using TLS.

   Whenever TLS is used, the identity of the service provider encoded in
   the TLS server certificate MUST be verified using the procedures
   described in Section 6 of RFC 
6125<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6125#section-6> 
[RFC6125<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6125>].

Will that work?

Sect 6 paragraph 5
Why are the security recommendations listed as 'could'?

Things listed as 'could' in this section were seen to be non-normative 
recommendations of possible mitigating behaviors. In other words, not trying to 
be prescriptive with the actions here but providing guidance. Most of these 
were relaxed from normative requirements in earlier drafts from WG feedback


Sect 6 paragraph 7
What makes it 'valid and trusted'?  The flow of this paragraph could be 
improved so the terms valid and trusted are connected to earlier statements to 
separate it better from the plain JSON objects.

On the first level, this includes validating the JWS on the statement itself, 
but as is usually the case, determining "trust" of a source is going to be very 
application specific. I'm not quite


Please add a section or interspersed statements on privacy considerations.  
Include text on what may be of concern (names, contacts, etc.) and what can be 
done to protect the values (interspersed may be easier) or that they may be 
left out to remove concerns.

Most of this protocol doesn't deal with any user information, and so I don't 
think there are any privacy considerations for most of the document. The one 
part of this protocol that I can see being a possible privacy consideration is 
the "contacts" meatadata field, which contains user contact information. Since 
this field is self-asserted by the client or developer (whoever's doing the 
registration) for the express purpose of providing a means of contacting the 
developer of the client, I'm not sure what concerns this might have, if any.

Do you have any other specific parts that you think would have privacy concerns 
that you'd like to address?

Thanks for the review and the thoughtful comments.

 -- Justin



Thank you,
Kathleen

Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to