Re: [OAUTH-WG] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-07: (with COMMENT)

[Torsten Lodderstedt <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa,

Thanks for your review. 

We decided to remove the registration requests for OpenID Connect claims from the draft in the latest revision. 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-08

Those claims are already registered in the JWT Claims registry, which is sufficient for the use cases in our draft. 

best regards, 
Torsten. 


> On 4. Sep 2019, at 17:49, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-07: 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-jwt-introspection-response/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I support Benjamin's DISCUSS point about the IESG being listed as the change
> controller for the registry entries. Overall I'd like to understand better the
> relationship between these registry entries and future updates to OpenID
> Connect (i.e., if the claims in the OpenID spec change, will this registry
> automatically need to change as well?).
> 
> I also support Adam's DISCUSS. How are claims like preferred_username currently
> used for the described use case of verifying person data to create certificates?
> 
> If the linkage with the OpenID Connect 1.0 claims remains in the document, I
> think it would be good to add a note in Section 1.1 or a new Section 1.2 to
> indicate that the document uses terminology as defined in that spec (e.g.,
> "End-User," "Relying Party," etc.).
> 
>