Hi Hannes and WG,
I just did what you had asked - sending detailed replies to everyone who had
sent JWT WGLC comments. I'd addressed most of the comments earlier but
discovered a few requested clarifications that I hadn't incorporated yet -
hence the -18 release just now. As you can see from the diffs, the actual
changes are quite small.
Anyway, this was a useful step. Thanks for pinging me about it.
Cheers,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:27 PM
To: [email protected] WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-12
Hi Mike, Hi all,
I was just trying to find out whether version -12 of the JWT spec addresses
prior comments and the diff version of the document does not really give that
indication. To me it seems that version -12 of the document was published to
update -11 in an attempt to create an alignment with the JOSE work.
I believe it would be useful to respond to the review comments so that we can
be sure that those had been taken into account (or that they had been rejected
for a good reason).
Here are the comments I have found:
* Review by James Manger:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11905.html
* Review by Mishra Prateek:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12003.html
* My own shepherd review:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12125.html
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
