[OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietf.org
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688FC1299A8; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:03:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148607662042.13885.2832003093930390561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:03:40 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/bsnKKLm4f3CU3dfT8RRW51f95H4>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq.all@ietf.org, oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 23:03:40 -0000

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Not Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.

Document: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-??
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-02-02
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-13
IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-16

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
    Why is the example if section 4 (and others later on) described
as
"non-normative"?  Is it incomplete?  incorrect?  An example is, by
definition, not a full specification.  The language seems designed to
reduce the value of the example.  I would recommend removing all the
"non-normative" notes from the examples.  They are clearly stated to
be examples. 

Nits/editorial comments: