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 revision | No specific revision (document currently at 34) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2017-02-13 | |
| Requested | 2017-01-30 | |
| Authors | Nat Sakimura , John Bradley , Michael Jones | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-02-02 | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Telechat review of -09
by
Warren "Ace" Kumari
(diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Stephen Kent (diff) Genart Telechat review of -09 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Warren "Ace" Kumari (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Stephen Kent (diff) Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -30 by Watson Ladd (diff) Genart Last Call review of -30 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Joel M. Halpern |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11-genart-lc-halpern-2017-02-02
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 34) | |
| Result | Not Ready | |
| Completed | 2017-02-02 |
review-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11-genart-lc-halpern-2017-02-02-00
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: