Subject: [Ace] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ace-oscore-profile-11

From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 20:16:17 -0700

Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Has Nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

This document describes how to set specific parameters in using  the
Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework
[I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. The document is written clear, except some minor
issues:

 Section 4.1.1 states that Nonce Parameter must be sent from the client to RS.
 What would be the problem if the client doesn't include the "NONCE"?

Page 12: It asks RFC editor to validate the numbers listed in Figure 7.  There
is no explanation or comments for those values. It will be very difficult for
RFC editor to validate. It seems to me there are 4 columns but  I can't
understand the meaning of the values under 1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns.

it is kind of difficult to validate the correctness by just reading through the
document.  It would be better to have an implementation report of the proposed
"Profile".

Best Regards,
 Linda Dunbar

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:07:42 -0700

Hi Linda,

>  What would be the problem if the client doesn't include the "NONCE"?

There's a little more discussion of the N1 in the previous section, but in
essence, this nonce is required to protect the client against replayed
responses.  Since the token contents (including key derivation material)
would be unchanged across security contexts, the nonce is used to make each
one different; it has to be client-generated so that the client is sure
that this security context is "fresh" (vs. replayed).

> understand the meaning of the values under 1st, 2nd, and 3rd columns.

I think this is just a note that the RFC Editor should make sure that
someone has checked the values (i.e., the authors).  The RFC Editor does
not need to be the one actually doing the checking.

Thanks for the review,

Ben