<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I did my review on the
plane using my iPad and a PDF annotation app called 'GoodReader'.
I've attached a marked up PDF as well as general text summary. I'd
use the PDF as it provides more context:) I can move to the other
specs Mike if you'd prefer.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
George</font><br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">See file attached to this message<br>
<br>
File: OpenID Connect Core 1.0 - draft 14 - flattened.pdf<br>
<br>
Annotation summary:<br>
<br>
--- Page 5 ---<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
authentication built on top of OAuth 2.0 and the use of
Claims to communicate information about the End-User.<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
This wording doesn't flow well. I should suggest something
better. <font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;"> <font
color="#ff0000"><b>If others agree</b><b>, I'll work
on a suggestion.</b></font><br>
</span></font><br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 6 ---<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
what the entity knows, possesses, has as physical
features, or behaviors, or combinations of these utilizing
heuristics.<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Suggest: what the entity knows, possesses, behavior
patterns, has as physical features, or combinations of
these utilizing heuristics.<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 7 ---<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Is the intent that the whole Issuer Identifier is case
sensitive? Or just the path component as per normal URLs?<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
case sensitive URL<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Maybe a forward reference to 2.1.3.6 would be helpful
here?<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 9 ---<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
subject identifier<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Subject identifier is not capitalized. Should it be?<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 10 ---<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
the<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
The -> a<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
When using this flow, the redirection URI MAY use the http
scheme, provided that the Client Type is confidential, as
defined in Section 2.1 of OAuth 2.0;<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
This special exception is confusing. I almost wonder if it
could be added to the security considerations and then the
text here is... MUST except for the case x.x.x.x in
Security Considerations. Another case where the will not
be http or https is a mobile client implementing the code
flow.<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Is this use of 'nonce' in addition to that described in
the validation steps for the hybrid flow? Or a different
method of doing the same thing?<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 12 ---<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
audience<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
This is the first use of 'audience' in conjunction with
the id_token. It might not make sense to someone just
reading the specs without any other context. Maybe add a
reference to the id_token processing rules section?<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 13 ---<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
This is confusing. If I specify a id_token_hint and ask
for the 'sub' claim then the AS must not response with a
successful response if the user doesn't match the
id_token_hint. However, if I don't ask for a sub claim
then the AS can return an successful response where the
id_token doesn't match the id_token_hint?<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 15 ---<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
interaction_required<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
What case is this covering that isn't already covered by
the other *_required error codes? Is my OP compliant if I
only return I the interaction_required error even if the
case is a login_required?<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Not sure the reg error makes sense.<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 22 ---<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
Multiple audiences are not supported for MAC based
algorithms.<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Why not? Wouldn't the secret associated with the azp work
for the client to validate the id_token?<br>
<br>
If we want interoperability across the use of audience and
azp we are going to need to describe how it works in an
extension document. It is not clear from this spec how it
is to work and I was on most of the calls:)<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 23 ---<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
the<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
The -> in the<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 24 ---<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
We say the same thing three different times. Once in 2.2.2
and twice in 2.2.2.1<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
When using this flow, the redirection URI MUST NOT use the
http scheme unless the Client is a native application, in
which case it MAY use the http: scheme with localhost as
the hostname.<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
I'm not sure we got these examples correct. Native
application can be both mobile or rich desktop. In the
mobile case it is most likely the scheme will not be http
related at all. I suppose in either case the client could
be running a local web server and use it to load the JS to
process the fragment. Maybe the real question is wether
local host should be allowed in the code flow.<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
I'm not sure this suggestion makes sense for the implicit
flow. The client would need to write a cookie value on the
domain of the redirect_uri and the attempt to read it on
the return of the implicit flow. Wondering if a local
storage example would make more sense.<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
One method to achieve this is to store a random value as a
signed session cookie, and pass the value in the nonce
parameter. In that case, the nonce in the returned ID
Token can be compared to the signed session cookie to
detect ID Token replay by third parties.<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 25 ---<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Did we chose the negative constraint here to leave the
door open for other types? If not a positive constraint is
easier to understand. Something like "this is only
returned when the response_type is 'id_token token'"<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 29 ---<br>
<br>
Highlight (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George
Fletcher:<br>
No Access Token is returned when the value is id_token.<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
I don't think this is necessary as 'id_token' is not one
of the allowed response_type values. Or maybe it's
supposed to be 'code id_token'?<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 32 ---<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Why not also the 'code token' flow?<br>
<br>
<br>
--- Page 34 ---<br>
<br>
Note (yellow), Oct 20, 2013, 5:27 PM, George Fletcher:<br>
Why isn't the id_token returned in the 'code token' case
as the scope requires an 'openid' value which ensures that
the response from the token endpoint includes an id_token.<br>
<br>
<br>
(report generated by GoodReader)<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>