[OAUTH-WG] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-32: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-32: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

After reading Sec 10.5, I was a little unclear how the client and auth server
necessarily achieve interoperability, but I think it's just an editorial fix.

If the server advertises that a signed object is required, then it cannot
communicate with a client that does not support the extension. But if the
object_required metadata is missing, then what is the metadata that tells the
client to use a signed object if it can?

IIUC the answer is that the server metadata includes the
request_object_signing_alg_values_supported and/or
request_object_encryption_alg_values_supported parameter in the metadata. It
might be helpful to spell that out here.

Is this correct?