Hi Mike, there is no problem referencing an individual draft particularly when that reference gives some hint about how the stuff is used (particularly when the referenced document might be a working group draft at the time when the dynamic client registration document gets published as an RFC).
In this specific case I haven't even thought about that draft-sakimura-oauth-requrl-05... Ciao Hannes On 07/14/2014 07:59 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > I'm not suggesting that we reference it. We reference JWT using the language > I already provided. I was just giving you another example of a signed JWT > sent to the authorization server, since you couldn't think of any off the top > of your head. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 10:57 AM > To: Mike Jones; Brian Campbell; John Bradley > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Dynamic Client Registration: jwks / jwks_uri > > That would then be a reference to an individual draft ;-) > > On 07/14/2014 07:55 PM, Mike Jones wrote: >> One example is when used as a signed request to the authorization server, as >> is done in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sakimura-oauth-requrl-05. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
