[OAUTH-WG] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Robert Sparks for the ARTART reviews and Mark Nottingham for the
HTTPDIR review.  Please make sure the former was fully addressed before
proceeding.

The SHOULD at the top of Section 4 is bare.  What happens if I don't do that? 
Or should this really be a MUST?

Same question for the first SHOULD in Section 5.  Is there ever a legitimate
reason not to do what it says?

I feel that claim names such as "acr" should be quoted.  They look like
misspelled words otherwise.