Re: [OAUTH-WG] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-07: (with COMMENT)
Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Fri, 20 September 2019 13:03 UTC
Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4575A1201A3; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yVtu-z3-dU8b; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay02.ispgateway.de (smtprelay02.ispgateway.de [80.67.18.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04E1812003F; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [91.13.158.20] (helo=[192.168.71.123]) by smtprelay02.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1iBIZU-00048M-LJ; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:03:36 +0200
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Message-Id: <1B033736-D3F9-48DC-8973-B2069F6749F2@lodderstedt.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5085F3FF-7005-45D5-B1F8-24FAEB03E73A"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:03:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <156761217998.22726.10487913212091468494.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response@ietf.org, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>, oauth-chairs@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <156761217998.22726.10487913212091468494.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Df-Sender: dG9yc3RlbkBsb2RkZXJzdGVkdC5uZXQ=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/EAwF6ry6xMjfhkJQZFLGn75gPNU>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:43 -0000
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 <noreply@ietf.org> 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.). > >
- [OAUTH-WG] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on dr… Torsten Lodderstedt