Subject: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:16:16 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol WG of the IETF.

        Title           : OAuth 2.0 for Browser-Based Apps
        Authors         : Aaron Parecki
                          David Waite
	Filename        : draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-03.txt
	Pages           : 18
	Date            : 2019-07-24

Abstract:
   This specification details the security considerations that must be
   taken into account when developing browser-based applications, as
   well as best practices for how they can securely implement OAuth 2.0.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-03
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Aaron Parecki <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:18:34 -0400

Hi all, thanks for the latest round of feedback. I've incorporated
these suggestions into the latest draft, -03. Here's a summary of the
changes since -02:

* Updated the historic note about the fragment URL clarifying that the
Session History API means browsers can use the unmodified
authorization code flow
* Rephrased "Authorization Code Flow" intro paragraph to better lead
into the next two sections
* Softened "is likely a better decision to avoid using OAuth entirely"
to "it may be..." for common-domain deployments
* Updated abstract to not be limited to public clients, since the
later sections talk about confidential clients
* Removed references to avoiding OpenID Connect for same-domain architectures
* Updated headers to better describe architectures (Apps Served from a
Static Web Server -> JavaScript Applications without a Backend)
* Expanded "same-domain architecture" section to better explain the
problems that OAuth has in this scenario
* Referenced Security BCP in implicit flow attacks where possible
* Minor typo corrections

I have a few open questions on this still based on discussion on the
list that there was not a clear consensus on, so I've prepared those
points to talk about during the session on Friday.

----
Aaron Parecki
aaronparecki.com
@aaronpk

----
Aaron Parecki
aaronparecki.com
@aaronpk

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:17 PM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth