Re: [OAUTH-WG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14: (with COMMENT)
Hi Lars, we addressed your comments in -15 which we just uploaded: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-dpop-15.html -Daniel Am 12.04.23 um 17:07 schrieb Brian Campbell: Thank you, Lars, for the review and ballot. I put together this small PR with updates for the comments/nits https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-step-up-authn-challenge/pull/4 On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 5:18 AM Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote: Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge/ -- COMMENT: -- # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14 CC @larseggert Thanks to Christer Holmberg for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/oLXp-vndky-rjnfs7kkHjH8acSg). ## Comments ### Inclusive language Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, `common`, `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`, `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`, `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread` ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### URLs These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS: * http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html ### Grammar/style Section 2, paragraph 12 ``` hentication level, and the new one- selecting the appropriate token for each ^^ ``` This word seems to be formatted incorrectly. Consider fixing the spacing or removing the hyphen completely. Section 4, paragraph 1 ``` Subsequent to the challenge in Figure 3, a cl ^ ``` Consider using "after". Section 5, paragraph 1 ``` requirements, the resource servers needs a way of accessing information abou ^ ``` The verb form "needs" does not seem to match the subject "servers". Section 6.2, paragraph 6 ``` ation server as a result of the requirements propagation method described he ``` An apostrophe may be missing. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool /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. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you./ ___ 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
Re: [OAUTH-WG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14: (with COMMENT)
Thank you, Lars, for the review and ballot. I put together this small PR with updates for the comments/nits https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-step-up-authn-challenge/pull/4 On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 5:18 AM Lars Eggert via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge/ > > > > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14 > > CC @larseggert > > Thanks to Christer Holmberg for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > review > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/oLXp-vndky-rjnfs7kkHjH8acSg > ). > > ## Comments > > ### Inclusive language > > Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and > more > guidance: > > * Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, > `common`, >`conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`, >`long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`, >`time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread` > > ## Nits > > All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may > choose to > address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by > automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so > there > will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what > you > did with these suggestions. > > ### URLs > > These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS: > > * http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html > > ### Grammar/style > > Section 2, paragraph 12 > ``` > hentication level, and the new one- selecting the appropriate token for > each >^^ > ``` > This word seems to be formatted incorrectly. Consider fixing the spacing or > removing the hyphen completely. > > Section 4, paragraph 1 > ``` > Subsequent to the challenge in Figure 3, a cl > ^ > ``` > Consider using "after". > > Section 5, paragraph 1 > ``` > requirements, the resource servers needs a way of accessing information > abou > ^ > ``` > The verb form "needs" does not seem to match the subject "servers". > > Section 6.2, paragraph 6 > ``` > ation server as a result of the requirements propagation method described > he > > ``` > An apostrophe may be missing. > > ## Notes > > This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use > the > [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into > individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. > > [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md > [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments > [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool > > > > -- _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. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._ ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
[OAUTH-WG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14: (with COMMENT)
Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge/ -- COMMENT: -- # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-14 CC @larseggert Thanks to Christer Holmberg for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/oLXp-vndky-rjnfs7kkHjH8acSg). ## Comments ### Inclusive language Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, `common`, `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`, `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`, `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread` ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### URLs These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS: * http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html ### Grammar/style Section 2, paragraph 12 ``` hentication level, and the new one- selecting the appropriate token for each ^^ ``` This word seems to be formatted incorrectly. Consider fixing the spacing or removing the hyphen completely. Section 4, paragraph 1 ``` Subsequent to the challenge in Figure 3, a cl ^ ``` Consider using "after". Section 5, paragraph 1 ``` requirements, the resource servers needs a way of accessing information abou ^ ``` The verb form "needs" does not seem to match the subject "servers". Section 6.2, paragraph 6 ``` ation server as a result of the requirements propagation method described he ``` An apostrophe may be missing. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
