[Last-Call] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-13

Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 20 March 2023 19:26 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <167934036701.34178.13686106848687201413@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:26:07 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/1DI9UYSlOLpUG72Wr00-O2grm0M>
Subject: [Last-Call] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-13

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Issues

Summary: essentially ready but with issues to consider before being published
as a proposed standard RFC.

Thanks for addressing the nit from my previous review.

I am not convinced that the document doesn't need more discussion around the
points I raised as issues in my previous review. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Ragwzpjm_58ydcr5VHqOyrmfw5I/.

I fully understand that you can't completely specify behavior, but your
explanations in your response to Roman, and the refinement in the response to
me really belong in the draft.

[Last-Call] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-… Robert Sparks via Datatracker
Re: [Last-Call] Artart telechat review of draft-i… Brian Campbell
Re: [Last-Call] [OAUTH-WG] Artart telechat review… Vittorio Bertocci