[OAUTH-WG] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Richard Barnes" <[e-mail]>]

Richard Barnes has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As with draft-ietf-oauth-assertions, the requirement for an "aud" claim
seems entirely unnecessary.  Holding this DISCUSS point pending that
discussion
and its reflection in this document.

"Assertions that do not identify the Authorization Server as an intended
audience MUST be rejected." -- What does it mean for an assertion to
"identify
the Authorization Server"?  Does the specified <Audience> need to match
the
entire URL of the relevant OAuth endpoint?  Just the origin?  Just the
domain? 
Does the URL need to be canonicalized?


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

"keyed message digest" -> "MAC"

Both this and the SAML document could save a lot of bits by just being
subsections of the -assertions document.