[OAUTH-WG] Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-24: (with COMMENT)

[Mike Bishop via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-browser-based-apps-24: No Objection

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-browser-based-apps/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for a solid and well-written document. Definitely a pleasure to read
such a thorough analysis.

The document states, "Given the popularity of this scenario, this document uses
the term "JavaScript" to refer to all mechanisms that allow code to execute in
the application's runtime in the browser. The recommendations and
considerations in this document are not exclusively linked to the JavaScript
language or its runtime, but also apply to other languages and runtime
environments in the browser." I understand the temptation because of how we
often speak about browser code, but that seems like a recipe for confusion --
how about not doing that? Use JavaScript when you actually mean JavaScript
itself, and use "browser-based apps" when you're more general (which is most of
the time).

Please also be consistent in your usage of JavaScript versus JS. We can afford
the extra characters unless you're referring to the standard file extension.

Nit:

- Why is "The first part (Section 5.1)" not simply "Section 5.1"? Same with
second/5.2.