On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:52:22PM +0100, Denis wrote:
> 
> 
> *1°. The draft will be unable to move to Draft Standard*
> 
> The Intended status of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq is Standards Track.
> 
> RFC 5657 states: Advancing a protocol to Draft Standard requires 
> documentation of the *interoperation *and implementation *o**f the 
> protocol.*
> 
> The goal of RFC standard Track document is define *interoperable 
> protocols, *hence not simply to define the syntax of a request leaving
> dozens of possibilities about the treatment of the parameters that may 
> be included in the request to the AS.
> 
> Generally speaking, the text is silent about the treatment of _every_ 
> parameter of the JAR. In particular, what kind of verification and 
> processing
> SHALL be done by the Authorization Server on "aud", since both "iss" and 
> "aud" SHOULD be present (see page 6) in the Authorization Request.
> 
> The document currently fails to *clearly indicate which parameters of 
> the JAR are used by the Authorization Server to validate the JAR itself
> and which parameters are used to build the requested access token*.
> 
> For example, is the "aud" parameter supposed to identify the AS or the RS ?
> 
> This means that the text should be sufficiently clear so that two 
> different implementations can interoperate. This will not be the case if 
> the text stays like this.
> 
> The goal of Standard Tracks RFCs is not to define frameworks but 
> *interoperable protocols.*

While I applaud the goal of interoperability, I must raise the big flag
that no one said anything about "Draft Standard" for this document,
and RFC 6410 eliminates the "Draft Standard" status.  And from a pragmatic
point of view, if it is necessary to first specify a framework before
one can get consensus to specify something fully specified and interoperable,
then that's a fine step to take.  So, I'm not sure that I'm convinced by
this particular item from your list.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to