Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-13: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. I would like to point out that there is some text in the IANA Considerations that does not belong there (i.e., it does not have any instructions for IANA) per RFC8126. "The parameter indicates the supported token types that can be requested in an [RFC8693] Token Exchange." This seems like a repeat of the Metadata Description and can be deleted? And then the section 4.2 below is more for information of readers and not something for IANA team to act on. This is better moved somewhere else in the document, I don't have a good suggestion as to where that might be. 4.2. Media Types This specification does not define any new media types. Profiles or deployment-specific implementations can adopt explicit typing as defined in JSON Web Token Best Current Practices [RFC8725] and define a new media type [RFC2046] in the "Media Types" registry [IANA.media-types] in the manner described in [RFC6838]. _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
