> -Original Message-
> From: Ludwig Seitz
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 1:20 AM
> To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-oauth-
> au...@ietf.org
> Cc: ace@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Shepard review for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz
>
> On 30/01/2
Hello,
we have an unresolved review comment by Steffi that got lost in the
holiday season:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/CBTkVUBzYrfC55zH3_UJDngiy9U
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/NrQWetugoy0TWp9eg3lwtSictc8
The issue is the following (my words):
The AS provides the
> -Original Message-
> From: Ludwig Seitz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 12:38 AM
> To: Jim Schaad ; draft-ietf-ace-oauth-
> au...@ietf.org
> Cc: ace@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Shepard review for draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz
>
> Thank you Jim,
>
>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:37:45AM +0100, Ludwig Seitz wrote:
>
> On 30/01/2019 07:01, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > ** IANA Section Issues
> >
> > 1. None of the new registries appear to have any guidance for the DEs to
> > use when approving items.
>
> Is it acceptable to add a single guidance
Thank you Jim,
I'll upload a new version as soon as we have resolved my questions below.
/Ludwig
On 30/01/2019 07:01, Jim Schaad wrote:
1. Update the reference from RFC 5246 to RFC 8446 in all locations
Items that don't appear to be resolved:
* Section 3.1 - Refresh Token - I don't think
1. Update the reference from RFC 5246 to RFC 8446 in all locations
Items that don't appear to be resolved:
* Section 3.1 - Refresh Token - I don't think that refresh tokens are going
to be strings because binary is more efficient.
Unless you are going to say that this is not OAuth
