Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14
review-ietf-tokbind-https-14-opsdir-lc-chown-2018-05-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tokbind-https
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-03-12
Requested 2018-02-26
Authors Andrei Popov , Magnus Nyström , Dirk Balfanz , Adam Langley , Nick Harper , Jeff Hodges
I-D last updated 2018-12-19 (Latest revision 2018-06-26)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Tobias Gondrom (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -14 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Chown
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-tokbind-https by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready
Completed 2018-05-08
review-ietf-tokbind-https-14-opsdir-lc-chown-2018-05-08-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document describes a set of mechanisms that allow HTTP servers to
cryptographically bind security tokens such as cookies and OAuth tokens to TLS
connections for both first-party and federated scenarios, the latter being
cases where the tokens are bound to a TLS connection the client has with a
server other than the one issuing the token.

The document is well structured and written.

It is Ready for publication, with minor nits.

Minor comments/nits:

Some prior knowledge is assumed, and some terms not expanded on first use, but
there is no terminology section.

It may be useful to include a diagram of the relationship between the various
elements in a federated scenario; I found myself drawing this while reading the
document the first time through.

In the diagram in Section 5.1, is that a different signature associated with
TBID1 and TBID2, if so perhaps label as signature1 and signature2?

There is some mixture of 'should' and 'SHOULD' through the document, likewise
'must' and 'MUST'; is this intentional?  In some cases, lower case seems OK,
but in others, it's not so clear, e.g., the last bullet point of Section 7
would seem to be a SHOULD not a should?