Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-32: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 07:49:18 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-32: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for 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-jwsreq/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. Not too many differences since
my review on the -26 (hence I reviewed mainly the diff).

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 1 --
Is it normal that the abstract has a) and b) while the introduction has a), b),
and c) ?

-- Section 5.2 --
I see that "Many phones in the market as of this writing" is still in the
text... Does this assertion still hold in 2021 ? Is it backed by some
references ?