Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-13
review-ietf-ace-oauth-params-13-secdir-telechat-kaufman-2021-03-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2021-03-23
Requested 2021-03-08
Authors Ludwig Seitz
I-D last updated 2021-03-26
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -13 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -13 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Charlie Kaufman
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/SpVy7sypj7rOpb8IZXLHBvV3EtU
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-03-12
review-ietf-ace-oauth-params-13-secdir-telechat-kaufman-2021-03-26-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
 Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

This is a re-review; I reviewed version -06 in December 2019.

In the intervening versions, the specification was simplified somewhat at the
cost of removing support for key rollover of asymmetric keys in certain
scenarios. A section was added "Requirements when using asymmetric keys" which
contained what I considered a confusing reference to DTLS, but it does not make
the spec ambiguous.

This is a small extension to [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] and is separate from
that document for technical reasons that I don't understand but which seem
plausible.

The security considerations section says simply (and I agree):

This document is an extension to [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz]. All security
considerations from that document apply here as well.

All of the nits mentioned in the previous review have been corrected.