[OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-21: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-21: 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 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-saml2-bearer/



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


- intro para2: might be nice (no more) to add some refs to
other protocols that use SAML. 

- 2.2: What are "padding bits" in 4648? I don't recall such.
(But may be misremembering.)

- section 3, list item 2: This doesn't quite say that the
token endpoint URL MUST (in the absence of another profile) be
in an Audience element. Why not? The text seems to me to allow
for the AS to map the token endpoint URL to any value in an
Audience element that the AS finds ok. I suspect that might be
unwise, but it at least needs to be clear. Is that the text
being ambiguous or me being paranoid/wrong? Same point seems
to apply elsewhere too: 
   = in item 3.A where it says "typically identifies" but
   does not say how. 
   = in item 5 "or an acceptable alias"

- section 3, item 7: How might an AS know that "the Assertion
was issued with the intention that the client act autonomously
on behalf of the subject"?