Re: [apps-discuss] R: Fw: New Version Notification for draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd-02.txt

[William Mills <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for the review!  Comments inline.

>________________________________
> From: Goix Laurent Walter <[e-mail]>
>To: William Mills <[e-mail]>; Apps Discuss <[e-mail]> 
>Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:12 AM
>Subject: R: [apps-discuss] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-wmills-oauth-lrdd-02.txt
> 
>
> 
>Hello bill,
> 
>Thanks for the update. I also believe this should be straightforward…
> 
>Some comments regarding your latest revision:
>-          The page header still mentions “A SASL/GSS-API Mechanism for OAuth” and needs cleanup
>-          Section 2: you mention “C:”, “S:” and SASL terminology that are not used in the draft and need cleanup


Fixed and fixed.


>-          4.1.2: /s/available/available (twice)

Only found one?

>-          4.1.2: you mention “The client MAY use this to determine if the client supports …” (for grant types and token types). Isn’t it rather the client to determine whether the *server* support these grant types? What about “The client MAY use this to determine the grant/token types available at the server”?


Changed the language, but not quite what you suggest.


>-          5.1: maybe you could provide https endpoints in your example rather than http as this would be more typical/in line with oauth recommendations

DOH!!!

>-          5.2: /s/soupporting/supporting
>-          6.2: note that the wf i-d is now wg (ietf-appsawg-webfinger-00)


Fixed x2


> 
>In general I am not that clear about your representation of the “grant-types” and “token-types” properties/attributes in the examples. Based on rfc6415 xrd/jrd mapping there seem to be some inconsistency on the mapping: do you envision these as link attributes or as properties?
> 

These are link extensions as defined in rfc 5988.  I see that I've represented them wrong in XRD, fixing that.


>Cheers
>walter
> 
> 


Again, thanks!