Subject: [Ace] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:18:31 -0700

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-13: 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-ace-oauth-params/

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

Thank you for this document. A couple of minor comments below.

Francesca

1. -----

      better symmetric keys than a constrained client.  The AS MUST
      verify that the client really is in possession of the
      corresponding key.  Values of this parameter follow the syntax and

FP: I think it would have been helpful to give some details about how this is
done "by verifying the signature ..." or a reference to where this is described.

2. -----

   parameters.  An RS MUST reject a proof-of-possession using such a
   key.

FP: Is any error message supposed to be sent in such a case?

---

From: Seitz Ludwig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 07:21:48 +0000

Hello Francesca,

Thank you for your review. I have some comments inline.

/Ludwig

I believe this would expand the scope of this document in a way I'd rather leave to the profiles.
The AS can verify possession of a key in various ways, some of which may be provided by the 
security protocol used between the client and the AS, which in turn would be defined in the profiles.

Would you be ok with the following addendum: "Profiles of [framework] using this specification MUST define the proof-of-possession method used by the AS, if they allow clients to request the use of asymmetric keys as proof-of-possession key."? 

> FP: Is any error message supposed to be sent in such a case?

I suggest to update to add a 4.00 (Bad Request) here.

---

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:35:46 +0000

Hi Ludwig,

Thanks for the quick reply! Both updates sound good and address my comments. 

Francesca

On 25/03/2021, 08:22, "Seitz Ludwig" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hello Francesca,

    /Ludwig