[OAUTH-WG] Re: Charles Eckel's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-rfc8725bis-09: (with COMMENT)

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Charles for your review!

Opened https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc8725bis/issues/65

Best,
     Yaron

------ Original Message ------
>From "Charles Eckel via Datatracker" <[e-mail]>
To "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
Cc [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Date 13/08/2026 21:06:44
Subject Charles Eckel's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-rfc8725bis-09: 
(with COMMENT)

>Charles Eckel has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-oauth-rfc8725bis-09: 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-rfc8725bis/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thanks to Valery Smyslov for the ARTART review and to the authors for
>addressing the points raised.
>
>## Comments
>
>### Section 3.11, RECOMMENDED vs REQUIRED use of "typ"
>
>681        Explicit typing is RECOMMENDED for new uses of JWTs, because without
>682        it, mutually exclusive validation rules are harder to enforce and
>683        cross-JWT confusion becomes more likely.
>
>Is there a specific reason the "typ" requirement is "RECOMMENDED" rather than
>"REQUIRED" for new uses of JWTs?
>
>
>