google.comSent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device
-------- Original message --------From: [email protected] Date: 9/2/19
2:00 PM (GMT-06:00) To: [email protected] Subject: OAuth Digest, Vol 131, Issue 2
Send OAuth mailing list submissions to [email protected] subscribe or
unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauthor, via email, send a message with
subject or body 'help' to [email protected] can reach the person
managing the list at [email protected] replying, please edit your
Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of OAuth
digest..."Today's Topics: 1. ?ric Vyncke's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT) (?ric Vyncke via
Datatracker) 2. Re: ?ric Vyncke's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT) (ki de) 3. Fwd: New
Version Notification for draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txt (Rifaat
Shekh-Yusef)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message:
1Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:40:31 -0700From: ?ric Vyncke via Datatracker
<[email protected]>To: "The IESG" <[email protected]>Cc:
[email protected], Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]: [OAUTH-WG] ?ric Vyncke's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT)Message-ID:
<[email protected]>Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"?ric Vyncke has entered the following ballot
position fordraft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: No ObjectionWhen
responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to allemail addresses
included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut thisintroductory paragraph,
however.)Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.htmlfor more information
about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.The document, along with other ballot
positions, can be found
here:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators/----------------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT:----------------------------------------------------------------------Thank
you for the hard work put into this easy to read document.Regards,-?ric==
COMMENTS ==-- Section 1 --"has uncovered a need, in some circumstances" (and
similar sentences in section1), it is rather vague for a standard track
document... Please add some factsand data, this could be a companion document
about requirements/use cases.-- Section 2 --It is rather a question of mine,
why does the resource need to be a URI (whichusually bears some visible
semantics) rather than an opaque string known onlyby the resource owner/server
? This is similar to Mirja's comment about
privacy.------------------------------Message: 2Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:22:53
+0000From: ki de <[email protected]>To: ?ric Vyncke <[email protected]>Cc:
The IESG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>Subject: Re:
[OAUTH-WG] ?ric Vyncke's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT)Message-ID:
<ch2pr15mb3606603d750b0001dedeae16d7...@ch2pr15mb3606.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 5:40 AM
?ric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:?ric Vyncke has entered
the following ballot position fordraft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: No
ObjectionWhen responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
allemail addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
thisintroductory paragraph, however.)Please refer to
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cda0508bc7b9a4598ae6f08d72f89a104%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637030140461915948&sdata=sK56j9bwVyLlNupgEdxExdaBTTOLnI28%2FYSTJVgLpG4%3D&reserved=0for
more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.The document, along
with other ballot positions, can be found
here:https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cda0508bc7b9a4598ae6f08d72f89a104%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637030140461925959&sdata=yGz0cyRb7FgYxHtHOMLTScZeIpTSQGb7pu6NOhQF2Ic%3D&reserved=0----------------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT:----------------------------------------------------------------------Thank
you for the hard work put into this easy to read document.Regards,-?ric==
COMMENTS ==-- Section 1 --"has uncovered a need, in some circumstances" (and
similar sentences in section1), it is rather vague for a standard track
document... Please add some factsand data, this could be a companion document
about requirements/use cases.-- Section 2 --It is rather a question of mine,
why does the resource need to be a URI (whichusually bears some visible
semantics) rather than an opaque string known onlyby the resource owner/server
? This is similar to Mirja's comment about
privacy._______________________________________________OAuth mailing
[email protected]https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Foauth&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cda0508bc7b9a4598ae6f08d72f89a104%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637030140461925959&sdata=QfcbDqqJ9Z6g%2BLq8dNAAizQcLfpLxR543GBaqZwiAsw%3D&reserved=0--------------
next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/attachments/20190902/3f1a298a/attachment.html>------------------------------Message:
3Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:03:20 -0400From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
<[email protected]>To: oauth <[email protected]>Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New
Version Notification for draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txtMessage-ID:
<cagl6eplgy3dkdxg_x9m0ojc05azu8yws0frdahjssxsnaoo...@mail.gmail.com>Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="utf-8"All,I have submitted a new version of the Nested
JWT draft and added the STIRuse case.Please, take a look and let me know if you
have any comments.Regards, Rifaat---------- Forwarded message ---------From:
<[email protected]>Date: Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 10:59 AMSubject: New
Version Notification for draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txtTo: Rifaat
Shekh-Yusef <[email protected]>A new version of I-D,
draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txthas been successfully submitted by Rifaat
Shekh-Yusef and posted to theIETF repository.Name:
draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwtRevision: 02Title: Nested JSON Web
Token (JWT)Document date: 2019-09-02Group: Individual
SubmissionPages:
5URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txtStatus:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt/Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02Htmlized:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwtDiff:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02Abstract:
This specification extends the scope of the Nested JSON Web Token (JWT) to
allow the enclosing JWT to contain its own Claims Set in addition to the
enclosed JWT.Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submissionuntil the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.The IETF Secretariat-------------- next part --------------An
HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL:
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/attachments/20190902/1c70a6df/attachment.html>------------------------------Subject:
Digest Footer_______________________________________________OAuth mailing
[email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth------------------------------End
of OAuth Digest, Vol 131, Issue 2*************************************_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
