Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-spop-14: 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-spop/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Version -14 resolves my DISCUSS (and also some of my non-blocking comments). Thanks very much for considering these and working with me on them! ========================================= My comment about the IANA Considerations remains. While it's non-blocking, I still hope you will accept the change I suggest: -- Section 6.2 -- I have the same comment here as in the other OAuth document: please shift the focus away from telling IANA how to handle tracking of the expert review, and make the mailing list something that the designated expert(s) keep track of. Also, please give more instructions to the DEs about what they should consider when they're evaluating a request (for example, should they approve all requests, or are there criteria they should apply?). For the first, here's a text change that I suggest we move toward for this sort of thing: OLD <most of Section 6.2> NEW Additional code_challenge_method types for use with the authorization endpoint are registered using the Specification Required policy [RFC5226], which includes review of the request by one or more Designated Experts. The DEs will ensure there is at least a two-week review of the request on the oauth-ext-rev...@ietf.org mailing list, and that any discussion on that list converges before they respond to the request. To allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied that an acceptable specification will be published. Discussion on the oauth-ext-rev...@ietf.org mailing list should use an appropriate subject, such as "Request for PKCE code_challenge_method: example"). The Designated Expert(s) should consider the discussion on the mailing list, as well as <<these other things>> when evaluating registration requests. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful. END ========================================= -- Section 7.2 -- I find the first first paragraph confusingly worded, and after discussion with the author I suggest this: NEW Clients MUST NOT downgrade to "plain" after trying the S256 method. Because servers are required to support S256, an error when S256 is presented can only mean that the server does not support PKCE at all. Otherwise, such an error could be indicative of a MITM attacker trying a downgrade attack. END ========================================= Finally, there is this comment, which is not a big deal and you should proceed as you think best: -- Section 2 -- There is no real distinction between STRING and ASCII(STRING), because STRING is already defined to be ASCII. Using "ASCII(xxx)" only adds clutter, and a suggest removing it. So, for example, that would result in changes such as this: OLD BASE64URL-ENCODE(SHA256(ASCII(code_verifier))) == code_challenge NEW BASE64URL-ENCODE(SHA256(code_verifier)) == code_challenge END _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
