Thank you very much.  I will send it to IETF Last Call.

I'm assuming that my read of Section 4a and b. was correct...If it wasn't,
please send me a message setting me straight.

Deb

On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 7:51 PM Michael Jones <[email protected]>
wrote:

> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis-07.html has
> been published to address your comments, Deb.
>
>                                 Thanks,
>                                 -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Jones <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 3:36 PM
> To: Deb Cooley <[email protected]>; Filip Skokan <[email protected]>
> Cc: Brian Campbell <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; Web Authorization Protocol
> Working Group <[email protected]>; oauth <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: AD comments on draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis
>
> I approved the PR
> https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis/pull/27.  Thanks
> for doing that, guys.
>
>                                 -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deb Cooley <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 3:27 PM
> To: Filip Skokan <[email protected]>
> Cc: Brian Campbell <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]; Web Authorization Protocol
> Working Group <[email protected]>; oauth <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: AD comments on draft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis
>
> Filip (and Brian),
>
> You are right, I have also come to the conclusion that idnits is wrong
> here.  apologies for that.
>
> I will look at the PR soonest (prolly tomorrow).   Although waiting until
> after spring breaks are over (I forgot about those, again apologies), that
> is fine as well.
>
> Deb
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 4:09 PM Filip Skokan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Deb,
> >
> > I picked up a WIP PR from Brian to (hopefully) resolve your comments
> > here
> > <https://gith/
> > %2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C83e6fef89cb448fd867e08de8b880ab1%7C84df9e7fe9f64
> > 0afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639101613575943450%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb
> > 3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjo
> > iTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mh1gEWVXYZfEIPMMaHvRgVe0Y
> > nZGCEZBbcZCqdojSTw%3D&reserved=0
> > ub.com%2Foauth-wg%2Fdraft-ietf-oauth-rfc7523bis%2Fpull%2F27&data=05%7C
> > 02%7C%7Caeb3cee0ed444f527dc108de8b86dc41%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaa
> > aaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639101608487502793%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1
> >
> hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=52LLsQQE6Bzv44HFNxNvkCK0%2BaWjdKcWFFXyUBGia%2BY%3D&reserved=0>.
> I reverted brian's attempt to fix BCP 14 references as I think idnits v3 is
> in error after comparing how BCP14 is referenced here vs other recently
> published documents. But I'll happily take you up on your offer to align it
> with a different example, that being said, as many iterations of this I've
> tried they all came back as issues from idnits anyway.
> >
> > S pozdravem,
> > *Filip Skokan*
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 at 20:07, Brian Campbell
> > <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Apologies, the meeting and travel and inability to access some
> >> systems on-site definitely did disrupt the getting things done list
> >> for me. Further disruption is coming for me with the kids' spring
> >> break starting soon (in a few hours for all intents and purposes with
> >> respect to work). So I can only apologize again as realistically an
> >> ETA for me responding in a useful way isn't until the week after next.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026, 11:13 AM Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Can I get an eta for responses to my comments?  I had assumed there
> >>> was some urgency, but I recognize the meeting tends to disrupt
> >>> things for a minute or two.  The good news is that we are probably
> >>> only looking at a 2 week IETF Last Call.
> >>>
> >>> Deb
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 11:28 AM Deb Cooley <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Below is a complete set of my comments on this draft (I've pestered
> >>>> the authors about a couple of early comments raised by idnits
> already).
> >>>>
> >>>> idnits v3 (experimental) raised three issues, one of them is legit,
> >>>> one is borderline, and the last is clearly in error:
> >>>> - idnits points out that it is preferred if BCP 14 is referenced.
> >>>> If you need me to find you an example of how to do this, I can.
> >>>>
> >>>> - RFCs to be updated are not in the Abstract.
> >>>>
> >>>> - the third entry here is clearly in error.  Mea Culpa. (about
> >>>> open.org in the references)
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 1:  (improve clarity)  The token identifies the recipient?
> via
> >>>> an audience value(s)?    If that is correct, then maybe the second
> sentence
> >>>> could be something like 'These tokens, which identify the
> >>>> recipient, contain an audience value(s).  s/aud/'aud' (or something
> >>>> to make it obvious that this is a field name).
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 3, replacing text:  I'm not sure the parenthetical for
> >>>> Section
> >>>> 2.2 (The authors re not actually aware....)adds much. I would remove
> it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 4 a. and b.:  Just to be sure I understand... for an
> >>>> authorization grant the audience can be the token endpoint URL (and
> >>>> nothing else), but for client authentication, the 'aud' claim value
> >>>> must not be the token endpoint URL (it has to be the issuer
> >>>> identifier). Assuming that audience = aud (audience) claim value.
> >>>> [I have no judgement on this, just being sure this is what you
> >>>> intended to say.]
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 7.1.1, contact information:  I believe we can use oauth for
> >>>> this contact (vice a person).  This is the authors' preference.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The publication window opens on Monday, hopefully it is fine to
> >>>> wait until then.  Once these are addressed, I will put the draft
> >>>> into IETF Last Call (3 weeks because of IETF 125).
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for your patience,
> >>>> Deb
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> *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
>
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to