Last Call Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11
review-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11-genart-lc-halpern-2017-02-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-02-13
Requested 2017-01-30
Draft last updated 2017-02-02
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)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11-genart-lc-halpern-2017-02-02
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 19)
Review result Not Ready
Review completed: 2017-02-02

Review
review-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11-genart-lc-halpern-2017-02-02

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-??
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-02-02
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-13
IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-16

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

Major issues: N/A

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: