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

The use of *iss* is correct here, and while it could be changed it isn't
clear why it should be. Given the current parameter registry format, it
should be merged.

I think the source of the issue is that the format of the registry is
confusing (at least for me), I would prefer to see it organized by usage
location, not by parameter name and then this wouldn't be an issue. But
that's not up for discussion, right?

Warren Parad

Founder, CTO
Secure your user data with IAM authorization as a service. Implement
Authress <https://authress.io/>.

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:21 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> 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).
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>