A few notes on the "form" only (not the "content"): HTTP no longer is RFC 2616, it's RFC 7230 through 7237 (7235 and 7236 actually replacing 2617). Specifically, the GET and POST methods are defined in RFC 7231.
application/x-www-form-urlencoded refers to RFC 1866; the same media type is said to be defined in HTML 4 in RFC 6749 and RFC 6750; and HTML 5 is now a thing. RFC 7009 uses the media type too but doesn't refer to any other RFC defining it. I think this draft should either refer to RFC 6749, Appendix B < https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#appendix-B> or to HTML 4 (for consistency with RFC6750) or to HTML 5 < http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml4/reference.W3C.REC-html5-20141028.xml> (because HTML 5 supersedes HTML 4). I'd go with HTML 5, given that the IANA registration has been updated in that sense (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/iana.html#application/x-www-form-urlencoded and https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/x-www-form-urlencoded); but given that RFC 6749, Appendix B algorithm is a subset of the HTML 5 one (enforces the use of UTF-8, ignoring the special key "_charset_"), and for consistency with other OAuth 2.0 specs, then maybe it'd be wiser to use the RFC 6749, Appendix B algorithm. References to sections of other specs form broken links in the rfcmarkup version, because of the name of the other spec appearing between "section N of" and the bracketed reference. For example, in section 2.3, "section 5.2 of OAuth 2.0 [RFC6749]" should instead read "section 5.2 of [RFC6749]" There's a dangling "These parameters" in section 2.1. This lacks at least a verb and a colon ("These parameters are:"). A last note on the content itself: +1, I don't think I have any further comment to make. On Thu Dec 04 2014 at 01:05:07 Richer, Justin P. <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: > Small update to the Introspection draft incorporating comments from the > past couple days. I haven't put together the IANA considerations section > that will tie the introspection claims to the JWT registry yet, but that's > the intent. Please check the diffs, read the new version, and continue to > send comments to the list. > > Thanks, > -- Justin > > On Dec 3, 2014, at 6:59 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working > Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : OAuth 2.0 Token Introspection > > Author : Justin Richer > > Filename : draft-ietf-oauth-introspection-02.txt > > Pages : 11 > > Date : 2014-12-03 > > > > Abstract: > > This specification defines a method for a protected resource to query > > an OAuth 2.0 authorization server to determine the active state of an > > OAuth 2.0 token and to determine meta-information about this token. > > OAuth 2.0 deployments can use this method to convey information about > > the authorization context of the token from the authorization server > > to the protected resource. > > > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-introspection/ > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-introspection-02 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-introspection-02 > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OAuth mailing list > > OAuth@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
