Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-08: 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-oauth-discovery/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to everyone who worked on this specification. I think it's well-written, clear, and useful. I fully endorse publication, and intend to ballot "yes" once we come to an agreement on the issue I describe below. The problem I'm running into is the URL synthesis rules described in section 3.1 for multi-tenancy engage in exactly the kind of behavior that RFC 5785 was designed to head off: it creates URLs all over the path space of the authority, rather than coralling all synthesized URLs to live under only one top-level directory. One of the key aspects of the principles of the web architecture is URI opacity <https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity>, which generally precludes clients from synthesizing URLs. RFC 5785 was intended as a very limited carve-out to the principle of URI opacity, and was carefully limited to a single top-level path element. This specification oversteps that carve-out by exploding the location that "Well-Known" synthesized URLs can appear: it literally increases it from one location (the root) to infinite locations (at the end of any arbitrary path). Fortunately, this defect is trivial to fix. Rather than placing .well-known path components *after* the path identified by an issuer identifier, you place them *before* it, which amends this document's usage to be within the spirit intended by RFC 5785. For example, the example in section 3.1: GET /issuer1/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Would instead become: GET /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server/issuer1 HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1.1: [this is an editorial suggestion that I leave to the editors' discretion] This document makes use of uncapitalized "must", "should", and "may" in places. Please consider using the RFC 8174 boilerplate instead of the RFC 2119 boilerplate. Section 7.2: [this is an important procedural comment that really should be resolved prior to publication] The addition of restrictions to registries established by RFC 6749 would seem to require that this document formally include "Updates: RFC6749" in its metadata, as well as a mention of such an update in its Abstract and Introduction sections. _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
