Thanks Denis! On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:37 AM, William Denniss <wdenn...@google.com> wrote:
> Thanks all for the great discussion. I tweaked the discussion on > public/confidential clients to rely more on the OAuth2 definition (it was a > bit duplicative), and I reordered the security considerations so it flows > better, but have kept the normative language for now. Let's see how it pans > out during the finalization process. > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Samuel Erdtman <sam...@erdtman.se> wrote: > >> Thanks for the replies. >> >> If there are no formal guidelines from IETF I think we should just >> proceed it is a good and informative spec, it was just to me it felt >> slightly of. >> >> Based on the conversation I have no objections taking this draft to RFC. >> >> //Samuel >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mit.edu> wrote: >> >>> When I brought RFCs 7591, 7592, and 7662 up through the finalization >>> process, I learned that there are two camps out there on normative >>> requirements in the security considerations section. Some like them, as >>> long as they don’t contradict requirements/advice in previous sections, and >>> some don’t like them, preferring all normative material be in the “body” of >>> the spec itself. I was given the impression that it was more of a stylistic >>> choice than anything, but I can only speak from my personal experience. >>> >>> — Justin >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2017, at 3:17 PM, William Denniss <wdenn...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The only real requirement in that section I guess is the use of PKCE >>> (8.2). That requirement could be moved to the body of the doc, while >>> keeping the longer discussing around code interception in the security >>> considerations. To me the remaining text are indeed security best >>> practices / clarifications. >>> >>> Other OAuth WG RFCs have requirement level capitalization in the >>> Security Section like RFC7591. I always assumed these were best-practice >>> security requirements. But if the style is really not to do this, the >>> requirement level capitalization could be dropped from that section in the >>> native apps BCP. >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Denis <denis.i...@free.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I *don't thin**k* it's normal to have normative text in the Security >>>> Considerations, hence I support Samuel's position. >>>> >>>> Let us look at the first MUST from RFC 6749 in the Security >>>> Considerations section: >>>> >>>> The authorization server *MUST *authenticate the client *whenever >>>> possible*. >>>> This sentence is incorrect. The right sentence should be : >>>> >>>> The authorization server *should *authenticate the client whenever >>>> possible. >>>> >>>> RFC 6749 is not an example to follow. >>>> >>>> Denis >>>> >>>> >>>> I do think it's normal to have normative text in the Security >>>> Considerations. RFC6749 has a lengthy Security Considerations section >>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-10> with a lot of >>>> normative text. >>>> >>>> Think of it this way: Sections 4 to 7 describe how to use native app >>>> URI schemes to perform OAuth flows from the app to browser and back. If you >>>> only read those sections, you could have a functioning (but potentially >>>> insecure) OAuth flow in a native app. The security section adds some >>>> security requirements and clarifications for implementing Sections 4-7, >>>> like using PKCE, and more. >>>> >>>> Reviewing sub-section by sub-section: >>>> >>>> 8.1 Definitely belongs here, as the the whole BCP is about native-app >>>> URI schemes, whereas doing OAuth in a WebView doesn't need those (as the >>>> client can just pluck out the code from any redirect URI) >>>> 8.2 Requires that servers who want to follow the native apps BCP >>>> support PKCE, and recommends that they reject requests from clients who >>>> don't. This *could* be in the main doc, but since PKCE is an existing >>>> thing, and is purely additive from a security perspective, I think this >>>> reference works fine. Originally I talked about PKCE more in the doc body, >>>> but some reviewers thought it was then a little duplicative of the PKCE doc >>>> itself. >>>> 8.3 This reads like classic security considerations to me, clarifying >>>> some details of 7.3 >>>> 8.4 Part of this reads a little new-ish, regarding distinguishing >>>> native clients from web ones. But on review, I think could just be >>>> re-worded to reference RFC6749 Section 2.1. >>>> 8.5 This one belongs where it is since the body of the BCP is talking >>>> about the code flow. >>>> 8.6 Totally belongs. >>>> 8.7 to 8.11 belong IMO, they are security clarifications of >>>> long-standing topics. >>>> >>>> My methodology when reviewing this was: is the text introducing a new >>>> topic directly related to native apps or sections 4-7, or does it discuss >>>> an old security topic in the context of native apps, or add security >>>> related discussions of the content in 4-7. Of all those, I really only see >>>> a bit of new topic related to native apps in 8.4, and in actual fact it >>>> that sub-section should probably be reworded since RFC6749 already >>>> establishes the public client type, which native apps are and a reference >>>> would be more appropriate (which would reduce it to just clarifying an old >>>> topic). >>>> >>>> What do you think of this analysis? Do you have any specific sections >>>> or text you feel are better suited in the document body? I will take an >>>> action item to revise section 8.4. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Samuel Erdtman <sam...@erdtman.se> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I just had a question on best practice. In this document a large part >>>>> of the normative text is located under Security Considerations. >>>>> >>>>> I had previously seen Security Considerations as things to think about >>>>> when implementing not so much as MUSTs and MUST NOTs. >>>>> >>>>> I think it is okay to have it this way but it surprised me a bit and >>>>> wanted to ask if there is any best practice for the Security >>>>> Considerations >>>>> section saying what type of information it should include. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> Samuel Erdtman >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing listOAuth@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OAuth mailing list >>>> OAuth@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
