On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 8:31 AM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
> >> and I trust the authors and responsible AD to do the right thing. > > > > I always endeavor to do the right thing. > > You do; hence, the trust. :-) > I do appreciate that, thank you. > And thanks for the quick responses. > I try. To varying degrees of success. > > >> — Section 1.1 — > >> Given the extensive discussion of impersonation here, what strikes me as > >> missing is pointing out that impersonation here is still controlled, > that “A is > >> B” but only to the extent that’s allowed by the token. First, it might > be > >> limited by number of instances (one transaction only), by time of day > (only for > >> 10 minutes), and by scope (in regard to B’s address book, but not B’s > email). > >> Second, there is accountability: audit information still shows that the > token > >> authorized acting as B. Is that not worth clarifying? > > > > My initial response was going to be "sure, I'll add some bits in sec 1.1 > along those lines to clarify > > that." However, as I look again at that section for good opportunities > to make such additions, I feel > > like it is already said that impersonation is controlled. > ... > > So I think it already says that and I'm gonna have to flip it back and > ask if you have concrete > > suggestions for changes or additions that would say it more clearly or > more to your liking? > > It is mentioned, true, and that might be enough. But given that Eve > also replied that she would like more here, let me suggest something, > the use of which is entirely optional -- take it, don't take it, > modify it, riff on it, ignore it completely, as you think best. What > do you think about changing the last sentence of the paragraph?: "For > all intents and purposes, when A is impersonating B, A is B within the > rights context authorized by the token, which could be limited in > scope or time, or by a one-time-use restriction." > Sure, I think that or some slight modification thereof can work just fine. I'll do that and get it and the rest of these changes published when the I-D submission embargo is lifted for Montreal. > > >> — Section 6 — > >> Should “TLS” here have a citation and normative reference? > > > > I didn't include an explicit reference here because TLS is transitively > referenced by other > > normative references (including 6749 of which this whole thing is an > extension) and TLS > > is pretty widely recognized even without citation. > ... > > I'm happy to add a citation here but it does raise the question of what > the most appropriate > > way to cite TLS is right now - 1.3, 1.2, or the BCP or some combination > thereof? > > I wondered the same thing, and you're also right that it might not > need a reference in this document. I only even flagged it because > it's the subject of a MUST. I'll leave it to the Sec ADs (who > obviously didn't flag it themselves, so maybe they agree that it's not > necessary). > I'm gonna just leave it as-is then, unless I hear otherwise from the Sec ADs. -- _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
