Subject: [OAUTH-WG] . ?ric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05:

From: nessandorae <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 15:20:54 -0500

google.comSent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device
-------- Original message --------From: [email-masked] Date: 9/2/19  2:00 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: [email-masked] Subject: OAuth Digest, Vol 131, Issue 2 Send OAuth mailing list submissions to	[email-masked] subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauthor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to	[email-masked] can reach the person managing the list at	[email-masked] replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of OAuth digest..."Today's Topics:   1. ?ric Vyncke's No Objection on      draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT)      (?ric Vyncke via Datatracker)   2. Re:  ?ric Vyncke's No Objection on      draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT) (ki de)   3. Fwd: New Version Notification for      draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txt (Rifaat Shekh-Yusef)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 02:40:31 -0700From: ?ric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>To: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>Cc: [email-masked], Rifaat Shekh-Yusef	<[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],	[email-masked]: [OAUTH-WG] ?ric Vyncke's No Objection on	draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT)Message-ID:	<[email-masked]>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"?ric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position fordraft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: No ObjectionWhen responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to allemail addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut thisintroductory paragraph, however.)Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.htmlfor 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-resource-indicators/----------------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT:----------------------------------------------------------------------Thank you for the hard work put into this easy to read document.Regards,-?ric== COMMENTS ==-- Section 1 --"has uncovered a need, in some circumstances" (and similar sentences in section1), it is rather vague for a standard track document... Please add some factsand data, this could be a companion document about requirements/use cases.-- Section 2 --It is rather a question of mine, why does the resource need to be a URI (whichusually bears some visible semantics) rather than an opaque string known onlyby the resource owner/server ? This is similar to Mirja's comment about privacy.------------------------------Message: 2Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:22:53 +0000From: ki de <[email-masked]>To: ?ric Vyncke <[email-masked]>Cc: The IESG <[email-masked]>,	"[email-masked]"	<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"	<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG]  ?ric Vyncke's No Objection on	draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT)Message-ID:	<[email-masked]>	Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 5:40 AM ?ric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:?ric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position fordraft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: No ObjectionWhen responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to allemail addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut thisintroductory paragraph, however.)Please refer to https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7Cda0508bc7b9a4598ae6f08d72f89a104%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637030140461915948&amp;sdata=sK56j9bwVyLlNupgEdxExdaBTTOLnI28%2FYSTJVgLpG4%3D&amp;reserved=0for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7Cda0508bc7b9a4598ae6f08d72f89a104%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637030140461925959&amp;sdata=yGz0cyRb7FgYxHtHOMLTScZeIpTSQGb7pu6NOhQF2Ic%3D&amp;reserved=0----------------------------------------------------------------------COMMENT:----------------------------------------------------------------------Thank you for the hard work put into this easy to read document.Regards,-?ric== COMMENTS ==-- Section 1 --"has uncovered a need, in some circumstances" (and similar sentences in section1), it is rather vague for a standard track document... Please add some factsand data, this could be a companion document about requirements/use cases.-- Section 2 --It is rather a question of mine, why does the resource need to be a URI (whichusually bears some visible semantics) rather than an opaque string known onlyby the resource owner/server ? This is similar to Mirja's comment about privacy._______________________________________________OAuth mailing [email-masked]://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Foauth&amp;data=02%7C01%7C%7Cda0508bc7b9a4598ae6f08d72f89a104%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637030140461925959&amp;sdata=QfcbDqqJ9Z6g%2BLq8dNAAizQcLfpLxR543GBaqZwiAsw%3D&amp;reserved=0-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/attachments/20190902/3f1a298a/attachment.html>------------------------------Message: 3Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 11:03:20 -0400From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email-masked]>To: oauth <[email-masked]>Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: New Version Notification for	draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txtMessage-ID:	<[email-masked]>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"All,I have submitted a new version of the Nested JWT draft and added the STIRuse case.Please, take a look and let me know if you have any comments.Regards, Rifaat---------- Forwarded message ---------From: <[email-masked]>Date: Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 10:59 AMSubject: New Version Notification for draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txtTo: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[email-masked]>A new version of I-D, draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txthas been successfully submitted by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef and posted to theIETF repository.Name:           draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwtRevision:       02Title:          Nested JSON Web Token (JWT)Document date:  2019-09-02Group:          Individual SubmissionPages:          5URL:https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02.txtStatus:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt/Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02Htmlized:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwtDiff:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-yusef-oauth-nested-jwt-02Abstract:   This specification extends the scope of the Nested JSON Web Token   (JWT) to allow the enclosing JWT to contain its own Claims Set in   addition to the enclosed JWT.Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissionuntil the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.The IETF Secretariat-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/oauth/attachments/20190902/1c70a6df/attachment.html>------------------------------Subject: Digest Footer_______________________________________________OAuth mailing [email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth------------------------------End of OAuth Digest, Vol 131, Issue 2*************************************