Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 08:27:02 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of nits:

8.2.  OAuth Implicit Grant Authorization Flow

   The OAuth 2.0 implicit grant authorization flow as defined in
   Section 4.2 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] generally works with the practice
   of performing the authorization request in the browser, and
receiving
   the authorization response via URI-based inter-app communication.
   However, as the Implicit Flow cannot be protected by PKCE (which is
a
   required in Section 8.1), the use of the Implicit Flow with native
   apps is NOT RECOMMENDED.

NOT RECOMMENDED is not actually a construct allowed by RFC 2119, I think
you should reword it using "SHOULD NOT".

It would be good to add RFC reference for HTTPS URIs.

---

From: Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 10:17:20 -0600

As far as I can tell, 'NOT RECOMMENDED' is fine per RFC 2119.

from https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

4. SHOULD NOT   This phrase, *or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED"* mean that
   there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
   particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
   implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
   before implementing any behavior described with this label.

And also this errata notes that NOT RECOMMENDED should be in the first
part of the abstract
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2119&eid=499

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 17:20:15 +0100

On Wed, May 24, 2017, at 05:17 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> 4. SHOULD NOT   This phrase, *or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED"* mean
>    that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when
>    the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
Never mind then!

> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Alexey Melnikov
> <[email-masked]> wrote:>> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
>>  When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
>>  to all>>  email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
>>  cut this>>  introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>>  Please refer to
>>  https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>>  for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>>  The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>  ------>>  COMMENT:
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>  ------>> 
>>  A couple of nits:
>> 
>>     Section 4.2 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749] generally works with the
>>     practice>>     of performing the authorization request in the browser, and
>>  receiving
>>     the authorization response via URI-based inter-app communication.>>     However, as the Implicit Flow cannot be protected by PKCE
>>     (which is>>  a
>>     required in Section 8.1), the use of the Implicit Flow with
>>     native>>     apps is NOT RECOMMENDED.
>> 
>>  NOT RECOMMENDED is not actually a construct allowed by RFC 2119,
>>  I think>>  you should reword it using "SHOULD NOT".
>>