Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-12: (with DISCUSS)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Thanks. I have entered a ballot of "no objection."

/a

On 10/19/18 4:15 PM, William Denniss wrote:
> Adam,
>
> Thank you for your feedback and pointers, version 13 should fully 
> address your feedback.  Comments inline:
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     DISCUSS:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Thanks to the authors for addressing my comments and half of my
>     DISCUSS.
>     This final issue appears to remain unaddressed:
>
>     §3.1:
>
>     >  The client initiates the flow by requesting a set of verification
>     >  codes from the authorization server by making an HTTP "POST"
>     request
>     >  to the device authorization endpoint.  The client constructs the
>     >  request with the following parameters, encoded with the
>     "application/
>     >  x-www-form-urlencoded" content type:
>
>     This document needs a normative citation for this media type.
>
>     My suggestion would be to cite REC-html5-20141028 section
>     4.10.22.6, as this
>     appears to be the most recent stable description of how to encode
>     this media
>     type. I'd love to hear rationale behind other citations being more
>     appropriate,
>     since I'm not entirely happy with the one I suggest above (given
>     that it's been
>     superseded by HTML 5.2); but every other plausible citation I can
>     find is even
>     less palatable (with HTML 5.2 itself having the drawback of not
>     actually
>     defining how to encode the media type, instead pointing to an
>     unstable,
>     unversioned document).
>
>
> Thank you for the advice. I've struggled with this one myself. HTML 
> 5.2 like you say links to an unstable and unversioned document (albeit 
> one that is readable and pleasant for implementors). I wish they had a 
> proper stable reference, it seems odd to normatively reference 
> something that isn't stable to me, but what can we do?
>
> I went with the exact reference you suggested, it's in version 13.
>
> Best,
> William
>