[OAUTH-WG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-iss-auth-resp-03: (with DISCUSS)

[Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-iss-auth-resp-03: Discuss

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/blog/handling-iesg-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-iss-auth-resp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Julian Reschke for the ART ART review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/XfLbtK1eLb7s0Z6e_AqGgkoWny0/.

I have one DISCUSS point that has to do with IANA considerations, and is
hopefully easy to resolve.

Francesca

1. -----

FP: I am sure the Designated Expert will bring this up, but "iss" is already
defined as a OAuth Parameter, for authorization requests. I don't think it's a
good idea to use the same parameter name, although in a different message of
the exchange, for something different, as the registration defined in Section
5.2 seems to imply. I strongly recommend to change the name in this document.
Or, if we can agree that the meaning is similar enough to the original "iss",
merge the two IANA registrations (this would not be my preferred choice).