[OAUTH-WG] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-11: (with COMMENT)

[Michael Jones <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for reviewing the document, Éric.

I'm glad that I brought a smile to your face with "`using fr might be sufficient in many contexts, rather than fr-CA or fr-FR". :-)

Per the use of "HTTP/1.1" in the examples, RFC 9112 titled "HTTP/1.1" was published in June 2022 and hasn't been obsoleted by anything, and so still seems to be current.  Skimming the HTTP/2 spec RFC 7540, it's not immediately clear to me what the replacement syntax would be for the examples, so I fear that I would get it wrong if I tried to use it.  That said, if you want to tell me what to replace this with, I'd be glad to do so:

> GET /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource HTTP/1.1
> Host: resource.example.com

You can thank Aaron Parecki for the superb application of SVG!

                                Best wishes,
                                -- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 11:06 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-11: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-resource-metadata-11: 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-resource-metadata/



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

Thanks for the document and thanks to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef  for the shepherd
write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended
status.

As a Belgian French-speaking person, I smiled when reading `using fr might be
sufficient in many contexts, rather than fr-CA or fr-FR` :-)

More seriously, should the examples in section 3.1 use a more recent HTTP
version ?

Superb use of SVG in section 5, suggest to introduce the "AS" acronym used in
step 6 in the text below the figure (this comment could possibly apply to other
acronyms).

Finally, I agree with John and Murray about their comments about the IANA
section.