Reviewer: Zitao Wang (Michael)

Review result: Has Nits

 

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.

 

Document reviewed:  draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-10

 

Summary:

 

OAuth 2.0 authorization requests from native apps should only be made
through external user-agents, primarily the user’s browser. This
specification details the security and usability reasons why this is
the case, and how native apps and authorization servers can implement
this best practice.

 

I think the document is written very clear, except some small nits:

Page 3:     The last sentence of introduction-- “This practice is also known as the AppAuth pattern”.  

I suggest adding a reference to explain the AppAuth pattern.

 

Page 3:     Terminology -- "OAuth". 

I suggest modifying to: "OAuth"   The Web Authorization (OAuth) protocol.  In this document, OAuth refers to OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749].

 

Page 4:     Terminology -- "web-view"  A web browser UI component.  

Does it mean "User Information"?  Suggest expanding this abbreviation.

 

Page 5:     Figure 1.   Does the browser and authorization endpoint are some kinds of "external user-agent"? Suggest describing it more clearly.

 

Page   9:   PKCE [RFC7636] details how this limitation can be used to execute a code interception attack (see Figure 1).   
Does the Figure 1 means “Figure 1 of RFC7636”? 

 

Page10:     However, as the Implicit Flow cannot be protected by PKCE    
Seems here, the reference be omitted. 
 

 

A run of idnits revealed no errors, flaws. There were 1 warning and 1 comments though
 

  == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
     document.
 
 
  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  -- The document date (April 26, 2017) is 14 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?
 
 
  Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
 
     No issues found here.
 
     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--).