Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params-13: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-params/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In sec 3.1 it says the AS SHOULD reject req_cnf if the key is symmetric. But in Sec 5 it presents a totally reasonable use case where the C and RS hold a previously established (symmetric?) key. These observations are somewhat contradictory. Should 3.1 include a qualifier. Would the AS know about this key a priori so that it can ignore the recommendation? If not, how can this be done safely? _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
