Thanks for your review Zitao!
Version 12 addresses your comments. Detailed responses below:
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 8:05 PM, wangzitao <wangzitao(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Reviewer: Zitao Wang (Michael)
Review result: Has Nits
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational
directorate’s ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the
operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in
last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
call comments.
Document reviewed: draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-10
Summary:
OAuth 2.0 authorization requests from native apps should only be made
through external user-agents, primarily the user’s browser. This
specification details the security and usability reasons why this is
the case, and how native apps and authorization servers can implement
this best practice.
I think the document is written very clear, except some small nits:
Page 3: The last sentence of introduction-- “This practice is also
known as the AppAuth pattern”.
I suggest adding a reference to explain the AppAuth pattern.
Done
Page 3: Terminology -- "OAuth".
I suggest modifying to: "OAuth" The Web Authorization (OAuth) protocol.
In this document, OAuth refers to OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749].
I went with:
"In this document, OAuth refers to the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework
[RFC6749]."
The phrase "Web Authorization (OAuth) protocol" only seems to appear in our
WG Charter, and not general usage
<https://www.google.com/search?q=web+authorization+protocol>.
Page 4: Terminology -- "web-view" A web browser UI component.
Does it mean "User Information"? Suggest expanding this abbreviation.
Done.
Page 5: Figure 1. Does the browser and authorization endpoint are
some kinds of "external user-agent"? Suggest describing it more clearly.
Now states:
"illustrates the interaction of the native app with a browser
external user-agent to authorize the user. "
Page 9: PKCE [RFC7636] details how this limitation can be used to
execute a code interception attack (see Figure 1).
Does the Figure 1 means “Figure 1 of RFC7636”?
Good catch. I delete the figure reference, since the entire spec talks
about this attack, which is likely sufficient.
Page10: However, as the Implicit Flow cannot be protected by PKCE
Seems here, the reference be omitted.
Added.
A run of idnits revealed no errors, flaws. There were 1 warning and 1
comments though
== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
document.
I ran it myself with verbose output, and got:
tmp/draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps__1_.txt(435): Found possible FQDN
'com.example.app' in position 5; this doesn't match RFC 2606's
suggested ".example" or ".example.(com|org|net)".
We are actually using a RFC2606 domain name here, but in reverse domain
name notation which is causing this warning.
No changes required.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (April 26, 2017) is 14 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
No issues found here.
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).
_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list
OPS-DIR(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir