Hi Hannes,
I have the changed the RFC 6755 and JWK references in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-20 in the manner
that you suggested.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:49 AM
To: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Minor questions regarding draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-19
Doing my shepherd write-up I had a few minor questions:
* Could you move the RFC 6755 reference to the normative reference section?
Reason: the IANA consideration section depends on the existence of the
urn:ietf:params:oauth registry.
* Could you move the JWK reference to the informative reference section?
Reason: The JWK is only used in an example and not essential to the
implementation or understanding of the specification.
* Would it be sufficient to reference RFC 7159 instead of the [ECMAScript]
reference?
* The document registers 'urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type' and it is used in
the "type" header parameter.
The text, however, states that the value can also be set to jwt. Why would
someone prefer to use urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type instead of the much
shorter jwt value?
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
