---------- Forwarded message ---------
De: <[email protected]>
Date: mar, 2 jun 2026, 12:28 p. m.
Subject: OAuth Digest, Vol 212, Issue 2
To: <[email protected]>
Send OAuth mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or
body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of OAuth digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-13: (with COMMENT)
(Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker)
2. Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-13: (with COMMENT)
(Brian Campbell)
3. Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-13: (with COMMENT)
(Ketan Talaulikar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 09:38:28 -0700
From: Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-13: (with COMMENT)
To: "The IESG" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Message-ID: <178041830805.2299682.5789742594429364328@dt-datatracker-5
b4c8598b5-4ztf9>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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].
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 11:22:54 -0600
From: Brian Campbell <[email protected]>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-13: (with COMMENT)
To: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>
Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Message-ID:
<CA+k3eCQFTab=GW43gQJHmHY13NMUt_=jhddnu4wcxhcq2x-...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="00000000000053315606534891d5"
Thanks Ketan, I think you are right on both parts and we'll remove or move
the respective text appropriately.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:45 AM Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <
[email protected]> wrote:
> 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].
>
>
>
>
--
_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._
-------------- next part --------------
A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3705 bytes
Desc: not available
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 22:56:07 +0530
From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-identity-chaining-13: (with COMMENT)
To: Brian Campbell <[email protected]>
Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Message-ID:
<cah6gdpytkguypxd1o6sn2mcebnpo+01uxbe__w-db9pbqbn...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="000000000000ee1f300653489be9"
Hi Brian,
Thanks for considering the feedback.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:53 PM Brian Campbell <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Thanks Ketan, I think you are right on both parts and we'll remove or move
> the respective text appropriately.
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 10:45 AM Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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].
>>
>>
>>
>>
> *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.*
-------------- next part --------------
A message part incompatible with plain text digests has been removed ...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4230 bytes
Desc: not available
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
------------------------------
End of OAuth Digest, Vol 212, Issue 2
*************************************
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
