Robert,
Thank you for your valuable feedback. Version 12 incorporates your feedback. Replies inline:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq >.
Document: draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-10
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-06-11
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-12
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC, but with nits to
consider
Nits/editorial comments:
In 3.5 "the client MUST use a reasonable default polling interval" is not
testable. Who determines "reasonable"? At the very least, you should add some
text about how to determine what "reasonable" is for a given device, and add
some text that says don't poll faster than earlier responses limited you to.
For example, if the response at step B in the introductory diagram had an
explicit interval of 15, but a slow-down response to an E message didn't have
an explicit interval, you don't want them to default to, say 5 seconds (because
that's what the example in section 3.2 said, so it must be reasonable).
Thanks for the feedback, version 12 specifies a default of 5s.
In 3.3, you say the device_code MUST NOT be displayed or communicated. Is there
a security property that's lost if there is? Or is this just saying "Don't
waste space or the user's time"?
It's just a waste of the user's time. This text has been modified.
The last paragraph of section 6.1 feels like a recipe for false positives, and
for bug-entrenched code. Please reconsider it.
I've reworded it a bit, but it's actually an important usability consideration so I do want to keep it in some form.
You need line-folding in the example in section 3.2
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
Best,
William
