Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11
Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 23:03 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688FC1299A8; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:03:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148607662042.13885.2832003093930390561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:03:40 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mRTivxzUNtjkEoUf1kvkyoeHBAU>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq.all@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 23:03:40 -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 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-jwsreq-?? Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2017-02-02 IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-13 IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-16 Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard Major issues: N/A 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:
- Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11 Joel Halpern
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-… Nat Sakimura