Last Call Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10
review-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10-genart-lc-halpern-2014-09-18-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-09-29 | |
Requested | 2014-09-17 | |
Authors | Michael B. Jones , Brian Campbell , Chuck Mortimore | |
I-D last updated | 2014-09-18 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -10
by Joel M. Halpern
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Radia Perlman (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Tim Wicinski (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Joel M. Halpern |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2014-09-18 |
review-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10-genart-lc-halpern-2014-09-18-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10 JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 18-Sept-2014 IETF LC End Date: 29-Sept-2014 IESG Telechat date: N/A Summary: This document appears to be ready for publicaiton as a Proposed Standard. This reviewer would suggest that the General AD check with parties who can confirm the two notes below. Note that the reviewer did not review RFC 6749, draft-ietf-oauth-assertions, or draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token, but simply takes as given that the work here is consistent with that work. Similarly, the reviewer assumes that the subtleties of internationalization of issuers (and any other fields that must be compared). It is not obvious whether pointing to the RFC 3986 is sufficient, but it is not obviously insufficient. Major issues: N/A Minor issues: I presume it is clear from the underlying documents whether the periods at the ends of intermediate lines in the examples are supposed to be there. Nits/editorial comments: N/A