Subject: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:04:24 -0500

Hello,

I reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management, which reads well and I just
have a few questions and suggestions below that would be good to address
prior to IETF last call.

Section 1.3
Bullet D might be easier to read as a list within the bullet.

Section 2
This is something I don't recall offhand and may be in place in another
draft, so a pointer would be great.  Is there an MTI set for one of the
recommended cipher suites in the TLS & DTLS BCP to ensure interoperability
(but also allow for algorithm agility)?  If not and there is a reason,
please explain.
See section 4: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp/
This is not the right draft to add this content, but I'd like to know if it
is covered somewhere or doesn't need to be for some reason.  TLS
requirements should point to that draft (assuming one exists) so there is
only one place to update if needed for any specific requirements to OAuth.

IANA Considerations:
The shepherd report says that there are no actions for IANA, so this needs
to be updated as the draft is the specification required to add two new
entries to an existing registry, established by the parent document.  It
does require DE review on the mailing list: [email-masked]
If that has been done, then a pointer to the archive would be helpful.

Thank you.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Justin Richer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:40:30 -0500

On Feb 26, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management, which reads well and I just have a few questions and suggestions below that would be good to address prior to IETF last call.
> 
> Section 1.3

OK, I’ll try that and see how it renders in the various output formats. Lists-within-lists don’t always play nice in my experience, hence the paragraph format, but we’ll see what it looks like. I agree that it’s an intimidating block of information there. :)

> 
> Section 2
> This is something I don't recall offhand and may be in place in another draft, so a pointer would be great.  Is there an MTI set for one of the recommended cipher suites in the TLS & DTLS BCP to ensure interoperability (but also allow for algorithm agility)?  If not and there is a reason, please explain.
> See section 4: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp/>
> This is not the right draft to add this content, but I'd like to know if it is covered somewhere or doesn't need to be for some reason.  TLS requirements should point to that draft (assuming one exists) so there is only one place to update if needed for any specific requirements to OAuth.

This is a copy of the text found in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-24#section-5

We basically just want to say “use an encrypted channel” and point to the best guidance there is out there at the time. There shouldn’t be any specific requirements for OAuth. Maybe in the future the IETF could have a standard single reference for transport protection that can be included a-la the 2119 definitions?

> 
> IANA Considerations:
> The shepherd report says that there are no actions for IANA, so this needs to be updated as the draft is the specification required to add two new entries to an existing registry, established by the parent document.  It does require DE review on the mailing list: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

Thanks for the review,
 — Justin

> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:54:45 -0500

Hi Justin,

Thanks for the quick response.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Justin Richer <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I reviewed draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-management, which reads well and I
> just have a few questions and suggestions below that would be good to
> address prior to IETF last call.
>
> Section 1.3
> OK, I’ll try that and see how it renders in the various output formats.
> Lists-within-lists don’t always play nice in my experience, hence the
> paragraph format, but we’ll see what it looks like. I agree that it’s an
> intimidating block of information there. :)
>
>
Thanks for playing with this, it might help.

> This is not the right draft to add this content, but I'd like to know if
> it is covered somewhere or doesn't need to be for some reason.  TLS
> This is a copy of the text found in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-24#section-5
>

Yes, I realized that when I read it, thanks.

>
> We basically just want to say “use an encrypted channel” and point to the
> best guidance there is out there at the time. There shouldn’t be any
> specific requirements for OAuth. Maybe in the future the IETF could have a
> standard single reference for transport protection that can be included
> a-la the 2119 definitions?
>

I brought this up as I read a few drafts for last week's telechat, one was
the BCP for TLS.  As a result, it got me digging into a few drafts to see
how it is getting used.  Hence, me noticing this possible issue in this
review.

The TLS protocol itself defines a large number of cipher suites for use
that are registered with IANA (defined per version, but you have to dig
into the referenced specs to see when each was added).

Then a number of protocols that use TLS define an MTI to ensure interop
between implementations, but typically have an explicit statement to allow
for algorithm agility.  The recent drafts seem to select one of the
recommended cipher suites from the list int he new TLS BCP.

Does use of TLS show up in an earlier draft or published OAuth RFC where
this would be appropriate to define?  How do implementations ensure interop
now? Maybe that will help answer this question.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen