Telechat Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 30)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-31
Requested 2017-01-06
Authors Nat Sakimura, John Bradley, Michael Jones
Draft last updated 2017-01-24
Completed reviews Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Warren Kumari (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Stephen Kent (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Warren Kumari (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Stephen Kent (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -30 by Watson Ladd
Genart Last Call review of -30 by Joel Halpern
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-09-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-01-24
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 30)
Review result Not Ready
Review completed: 2017-01-24


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-??
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-01-24
IETF LC End Date: None
IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-02

Summary: This document is not ready for publication as a standards track RFC.

[Reviewers note:  It is quite possible that the problem listed below is my error.  In that case, this should be considered as ready with minor issues.]

Major issues:
    I can not find any record of an IETF last call for this document.  I looked in the document history and the IETF discussion list.  If I missed it, I apologize for being oblivious.

Minor issues:
    Why is the example if section 4 (and others later on) described as "non-normative"?  Is it incomplete?  incorrect?  An example is, by definition, not a full specification.  The language seems designed to reduce the value of the example.  I would recommend removing all the "non-normative" notes from the examples.  They are clearly stated to be examples. 

Nits/editorial comments: