Skip to content

add(considered): cross-device flow security (RFC 10027) is an authorization-server property - #179

Draft
jdevalk wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
add/considered-cross-device-flows-2026-08-16
Draft

add(considered): cross-device flow security (RFC 10027) is an authorization-server property#179
jdevalk wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
add/considered-cross-device-flows-2026-08-16

Conversation

@jdevalk

@jdevalk jdevalk commented Aug 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What changed

Adds one entry to the /considered/ register: Cross-device flow security (RFC 10027 / BCP 247), turned down as out-of-scope.

No spec page, no changelog entry — this records a decision, not a change to what the spec says.

Why now

The IETF published RFC 10027, "Best Current Practice for Security of Cross-Device Flows", on 11 August 2026 as BCP 247. It landed inside this run's scan window and is exactly the kind of topic that looks like it belongs here — it is security, it is authentication, and this spec already has well-known/webauthn, well-known/change-password and accessibility/accessible-authentication.

It does not belong here. The RFC names its audience (architects, fraud analysts, engineers building authentication systems) and every mitigation it prescribes — proximity establishment, short-lived single-use codes, rate limiting, anomaly detection, preferring FIDO2/WebAuthn over the device authorization grant — executes inside an authorization server or a native client. Nothing surfaces at an origin: no header, no element, no published resource, so nothing an outside observer could check. A site that consumes a well-implemented IdP satisfies the BCP without doing anything at all.

That is the auditable website outcome, not build technique rule, and it is the same call already recorded for the HTTP QUERY method.

Primary sources

Revisit condition

If a site-published artefact grows around it — a well-known document, a header, or metadata declaring which cross-device flows an origin will accept — that artefact becomes the topic and would earn a page under well-known or security.

Checks

npm run build, npm run lint, npm run format:check all pass. Page count and categories unchanged (168 / 10), so no SKILL.md or digest change.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…r property

RFC 10027 (BCP 247, August 2026) is real and well-aimed, but every mitigation
lands inside an authorization server or a native client. Nothing surfaces at an
origin, so there is nothing to describe or audit as a website property.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@cloudflare-workers-and-pages

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deploying specification-website with  Cloudflare Pages  Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit: ada5784
Status: ✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL: https://35774721.specification-website.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL: https://add-considered-cross-device.specification-website.pages.dev

View logs

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant