Re: [OAUTH-WG] Minor questions regarding draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-19

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Mike.

Leave the ECMAScript reference in the document. I indicated it as a
DOWNREF in the my shepherd write-up and that should be fine.

Ciao
Hannes


On 04/23/2014 06:32 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> Replies inline...
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OAuth [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:49 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Minor questions regarding
> draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-19
> 
>  
> 
> Doing my shepherd write-up I had a few minor questions:
> 
>  
> 
> * Could you move the RFC 6755 reference to the normative reference
> section? Reason: the IANA consideration section depends on the existence
> of the urn:ietf:params:oauth registry.
> 
>  
> 
> OK
> 
>  
> 
> * Could you move the JWK reference to the informative reference section?
> 
> Reason: The JWK is only used in an example and not essential to the
> implementation or understanding of the specification.
> 
>  
> 
> OK
> 
>  
> 
> * Would it be sufficient to reference RFC 7159 instead of the
> [ECMAScript] reference?
> 
>  
> 
> No.  There’s no equivalent to Section 15.12 of ECMAScript about the
> lexically last member name to reference in RFC 7159.  See the usage in
> the first paragraph of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-19#section-4.
> 
>  
> 
> * The document registers 'urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type' and it is
> used in the "type" header parameter.
> 
>  
> 
> The text, however, states that the value can also be set to jwt. Why
> would someone prefer to use urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type instead of
> the much shorter jwt value?
> 
>  
> 
> There are use cases, such as using JWTs as tokens in WS-Trust, where a
> URI is needed.
> 
>  
> 
> Ciao
> 
> Hannes
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for doing this.
> 
>  
> 
>                                                             -- Mike
> 
>  
>