Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Review comments to PoP Architecture

From: "Kepeng Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2015 00:55:48 +0800

Hello authors,

Please find my review comments to PoP Architecture document:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture-02

1.    Introduction:

At the time of writing the OAuth 2.0 protocol family ([RFC6749],
[RFC6750], and [RFC6819]) offer a single standardized security mechanism to
access protected resources, namely the bearer token.
[Kepeng]  This sentences seem to be incomplete. What offers a security
mechanism? Also why do we mention “at the time of writing”? Is the situation
changed now?

2. Section 3:
The main use case that motivates better-than-bearer token security is    the
desire of resource servers to obtain additional assurance that   the client
is indeed authorized to present an access token.
[Kepeng] About “better-than-bear”, is it a word? Maybe reword the sentence a
little bit.
 
3.Section 3.1
1) In a legitimate use case consider chaining of computations whereby a
resource server needs to consult other third party resource servers to
complete the requested operation.
[Kepeng] This sentence seems to be incomplete. Maybe reword it a little bit?
 
2) In this use case additional information is conveyed to the resource
server to ensure that no entity entity has tampered with the TLS connection.
[Kepeng] Change “is conveyed” to “should be conveyed”?
 
4. Section 3.3:
First, an eavesdropper may steal an access token and represent it at a
different resource server.
[Kepeng] Change “represent it at” to “present it to”?
 
5. Section 3.4:
These load balancers may terminate the TLS connection setup and HTTP traffic
is transmitted in the clear from the load balancer to the resource server.
[Kepeng] Don’t understand “in the clear”. Should it be “in the wire”?

Kind Regards
Kepeng