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 > <mailto:denis.i...@free.fr>> wrote: > > I don't think 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 >> <mailto: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 list >> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > <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
