Last Call Review of draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-14
review-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-14-genart-lc-arkko-2018-08-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-08-06
Requested 2018-07-23
Draft last updated 2018-08-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -14 by Jari Arkko (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -14 by Zitao Wang (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jari Arkko
State Completed
Review review-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-14-genart-lc-arkko-2018-08-03
Reviewed rev. 14 (document currently at 19)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2018-08-03

Review
review-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-14-genart-lc-arkko-2018-08-03

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-token-exchange-14
Reviewer: Jari Arkko
Review Date: 2018-08-03
IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This specification describes a standardised protocol for requesting and receiving security tokens from an OAuth 2.0 authorisation service.

I had no experience on OAuth previously, but the document was understandable and as far as I could determine, had no major issues.

It was a bit more difficult to determine completeness.  Security and privacy considerations sections were quite short, for instance, and maybe that's justifiable given the ability to refer to prior RFCs on this subject. However, I suspect one could say more, e.g., Section 7 says "Tokens typically carry personal information and their usage in Token Exchange may  reveal details of the target services being accessed", but it does not offer any advice on how such details might be minimised. But perhaps that's already in another RFC as well.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: