Thanks for your review, Martin.  We've published 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-33 to address your and 
other IESG comments.

Responses are inline below, prefixed by "Mike>".

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 12:13 PM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]
Subject: Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-32: (with 
COMMENT)

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-32: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email 
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory 
paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for 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-jwsreq/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading Sec 10.5, I was a little unclear how the client and auth server 
necessarily achieve interoperability, but I think it's just an editorial fix.

If the server advertises that a signed object is required, then it cannot 
communicate with a client that does not support the extension. But if the 
object_required metadata is missing, then what is the metadata that tells the 
client to use a signed object if it can?

IIUC the answer is that the server metadata includes the 
request_object_signing_alg_values_supported and/or 
request_object_encryption_alg_values_supported parameter in the metadata. It 
might be helpful to spell that out here.

Is this correct?

Mike> Yes, correct.  I've added the clarifying point that you suggested by 
adding this paragraph to the end of Section 10.5:
            Note that even if "require_signed_request_object"
            metadata values are not present, the client MAY use signed request 
objects,
            provided that there are signing algorithms mutually supported by 
the client and the server.
            Use of signing algorithm metadata is described in Section 4.

                                Thanks again,
                                -- Mike

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

Reply via email to