On 04/08/16 14:08, Nat Sakimura wrote: > Hi. > > > > I am open to change, but I would like to have a nice abbreviation as well. > > > > What about the following? > > > > The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework: JWT Secured Authorization Request > (JAR) > > This is a good suggestion, I find this more descriptive, and it fits the title pattern of RFC 6749 and RFC 6750.
JWT should probably be spelled in full though (this seems to be the practice). Vladimir > Best, > > > > Nat > > > > -- > > PLEASE READ :This e-mail is confidential and intended for the > > named recipient only. If you are not an intended recipient, > > please notify the sender and delete this e-mail. > > > > From: OAuth [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Dzhuvinov > Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 7:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-08.txt > > > > I would like to propose a slight change of the spec title. > > > > From > > OAuth 2.0 JWT Authorization Request > > > > to > > JSON Web Token (JWT) Secured OAuth 2.0 Authorization Request > > > > The current title is not particularly descriptive, and may even read as if > the spec is about requesting a JWT. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Vladimir > > > > > -- Vladimir Dzhuvinov :: [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
