[OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 22:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148590350709.6011.3498845571170184756.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:58:27 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Lj4i3uZIDxyIiWvWd9NrWdcj8_c>
Cc: oauth-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05: 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-amr-values/



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

In 6.1, the text seems to say experts must enforce one of two different
standards for handling characters outside the non-printable ascii set. Is
that the intent? That seems to invite inconsistent decisions from
different experts. Would it make more sense to say that experts must make
sure one of the two standards is met, rather than choosing which standard
they want to follow?

[OAUTH-WG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… Ben Campbell