[OAUTH-WG] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-01

Scott Bradner via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 08 May 2022 12:52 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <165201435717.22089.3669756595488460823@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 05:52:37 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/Qer_lnhQnMMrIRek9DyR0r0HbF4>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-01

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Has Nits

This is an OPS-DIR review of JWK Thumbprint URI
(draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri).

This document is well written and clearly defines the technology.

one nit – I do not see a need for section 2 (Requirements Notation and
Conventions) since the capitalized terms are not used in the document.  One
place that a MUST could be used is in section 5 (Mandatory to Implement Hash
Algorithm) and it might be useful to do so since some implementation checklists
that I have seen key off of the RFC 2119 capitalized terms but, that said, the
language in the current document is very clear.

[OAUTH-WG] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Scott Bradner via Datatracker