On Apr 17, 2018, at 12:24, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (Obsoleted by RFC 8259)
That also gives rise to: Minor technical comment: 2.3 claims that JSON can be in different encodings. This is no longer really the case with RFC 8259 (see Section 8.1). Please fix the wording to remove the untrue claim (no pun intended). Major technical comment: Section 3.9 recommends the use of media types of the form application/example+jwt. I don’t find a registration for the RFC 6839 structured syntax suffix "+jwt". If this recommendation is desired, this document will need to register it (preferred) or refer to a document that does. Nit: Section 1.2 could use the newer template (as per RFC 8174) here. Nit: Section 3.6: s/use/use or admit the use of/ Nit: Section 3.8: s/not/not present or not/ I think these are all solved in an obvious way, and once done I strongly support this document to go forward. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
