Thanks for your review, Tom. I've added the working group to this thread so they're aware of your comment.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 8:33 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Last Call review of draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-21 > > I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area > directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > Tom Taylor > > Summary: Process issue: IDnits complains of a normative reference to > Informational document RFC 6755. This was NOT noted in the Last Call > announcement (but was noted in the Shepherd writeup). No operational issue > identified beyond what is already covered by the Interoperability > Considerations > section. 6755 defines a registry that this specification uses. > Editorial Nits: > > S2.2: The paragraph before the actual example uses terminology inconsistent > with RFC 6749: > > s/authorization code grant/authorization grant/ Actually, RFC 6749 uses both terms. Authorization grant is the generic term. Authorization Code Grant (defined in Section 4.1 of 6749) is a specific kind of authorization grant. Thanks again, -- Mike _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
