Thanks for the information. Hopefully it will get fixed in the next version.
BR Zahed On 2021-06-29, 19:57, "Brian Campbell" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks Zaheduzzaman, Indeed it was intended that RFC6749 be a normative reference. But we had a little oversight/mixup with the tooling (mmark), which should be corrected with https://github.com/oauthstuff/draft-oauth-par/commit/2c78427a9<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=126d0db2-4df637f7-126d4d29-867b36d1634c-6d82087b68771974&q=1&e=0883df6d-bd3f-47ad-8897-53f2697ef7f4&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Foauthstuff%2Fdraft-oauth-par%2Fcommit%2F2c78427a9> (all but one of the RFC6749 citations were marked with the normative modifier but it picked up the one that wasn't). On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:44 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-par-08: No Objection ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the efforts on this document. I think RFC6749 should be in the normative reference. To understand, implement and use this document one has to understand RFC6749 first. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
