Hello Elwyn,
thank you for your review. Comments inline.
/Ludwig
On 2019-12-14 23:46, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review result: Not Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-06
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2019-12-14
IETF LC End Date: 2019-12-13
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<">https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.
Document: draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-06
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2019/12/14
IETF LC End Date: 2019/2/13
IESG Telechat date: (if known) N/A
Summary: Not ready. In particular there seems to be some doubt as to whether
the definitions in this document are actually stable - or alternatively that it
lacks a versioning mechanism to cope with changes that the might be.
Major issues:
Dealing with possible updates to items defined here:
In s1 the following appears:
These parameters and claims can also be used in other contexts, and may
need to be updated to align them with ongoing OAuth work. Therefore, these
parameters and claims have been put into a dedicated document, to
facilitate their use and any potential updates in a manner independent of
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz].
I am unclear whether this implies that it is intended that these potential
updates would alter the definitions here after they have been standardized or
alternatively that the standardization of this document should be delayed until
the alternative usage is defined. If the first case applies, I do not see any
versioning mechanism that would allow early implementations to cope with later
updates of the items defined here. In the second case, I have to ask myself
why this document has been submitted for standardization before the usages have
stabilized.
The intention with this document was to place certain parameters
(req_cnf, cnf, rs_cnf) needed for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz into a
separate document, that could be updated or obsoleted by other drafts
without obsoleting or updating draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz.
This is mainly due to some work in the OAuth WG which has been running
in parallel, especially
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-key-distribution.
Since this is not a high priority item for OAuth (the draft named above
has expired), the feeling in ACE was (@ACE please correct me if I
misrepresent) that going forward with this document was a good
compromise to get these parameters standardized, while causing minimal
breakage if OAuth at some later point finalized the pop key distribution
work.
Minor issues:
ss3.1, 3.2 and 4.1: The COSE_Key type 'EC' used in several kty fields is not
defined. I assume it should be 'EC2'.
Correct, will fix
ss3.1, 3.2 and 4.1: Does it matter that the definitions of the x and y
parameters in an EC2 key are given as 'h' encodings in RFC8152 but are given as
'b64' in this document? I am very much not an expert here.
This is just a matter of the diagnostic representation used here for
human readability. On the wire this will be the same binary string.
Note that the hex encoding h'....' renders a much longer string than the
Base64 encoding b64'...' so I prefer b64 for readability.
s6: This section starts with 'If CBOR is used...': The main ACE draft
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz is apparently intended to cover both JSON and CBOR
encodings of payloads, although CBOR is recommended. This is not made explicit
in this addition to that specification and the use of CBOR diagnostic
representation and the prominence of COSE_Key items could make it appear up
until s6 that this specification is intended just for CBOR encoding. A few
words at the beginning would clarify the dual alternatives.
I will add a clarification. The intention is to cover both JSON and CBOR.
Nits/editorial comments:
Will fix.
General: s/e.g./e.g.,/ (3 places)
Abstract, 2nd sentence: s/whishes/wishes/
Abstract: Need to expand AS and RS.
s2: RS, AS and (probably) various other terms are defined in RFC 6749 and need
to be expanded on first use. Adding something like the para from
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz would solve this (except for the abstract).
Terminology for entities in the architecture is defined in OAuth 2.0
[RFC6749] such as client (C), resource server (RS), and authorization
server (AS).s2, para 3: Need to expand CoAP on first use.
s3: This section needs a reference to RFC 8152 for the specification of the
CWT COSE_Key item that is used extensively.
s3/s4: Some introductory text for each section is desirable.
s3.1, para 2 (definition of req_cnf):: Possibly add a note that the
recommendation against symmetric keys implies currently kty being 'Symmetric'.
Will it ever be anything else?
s3.1: The text in s3.2 of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-03 contans
the following
The COSE_Key MUST contain the required key members for a COSE_Key of that
key type and MAY contain other COSE_Key members, including the "kid" (Key
ID) member.
The "COSE_Key" member MAY also be used for a COSE_Key representing a
symmetric key, provided that the CWT is encrypted so that the key is not
revealed to unintended parties. The means of encrypting a CWT is explained
in [RFC8392]. If the CWT is not encrypted, the symmetric key MUST be
encrypted as described in Section 3.3.
These riders probably apply to all the subsectons of s3 and to s4.1 and could
be included in the currently empty main section text.
s4.1, rs_cnf - DTLS-RPK: This term needs a reference (RFC 7250). Also all other
uses do not hyphenate and RPK needs to be expanded.
s/DTLS-RPK handshake/DTLS Raw Public Key (RPK) handshake [RFC7250]/
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
a...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
