Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-09

Joel Halpern <> Tue, 24 January 2017 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFBE1295CE; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:13:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joel Halpern <>
To: <>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-09
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.4
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:13:19 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:13:20 -0000

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Not Ready

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-??
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-01-24
IETF LC End Date: None
IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-02

Summary: This document is not ready for publication as a standards
track RFC.

[Reviewers note:  It is quite possible that the problem listed below
is my error.  In that case, this should be considered as ready with
minor issues.]

Major issues:
    I can not find any record of an IETF last call for this document. 
I looked in the document history and the IETF discussion list.  If I
missed it, I apologize for being oblivious.

Minor issues:
    Why is the example if section 4 (and others later on) described as
"non-normative"?  Is it incomplete?  incorrect?  An example is, by
definition, not a full specification.  The language seems designed to
reduce the value of the example.  I would recommend removing all the
"non-normative" notes from the examples.  They are clearly stated to
be examples. 

Nits/editorial comments: