[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-08: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-08: 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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT)

I don't have a strong objection to it. I still think that, if this is allowed (even as a SHOULD NOT), we need clarity that any query parameters that are used to scope queries to an application necessarily form part of the resource parameter. It's significantly less important, though, now that

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-07: Discuss 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

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: 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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-mtls-16: (with COMMENT)

On 8/22/19 5:48 PM, Brian Campbell wrote: Regarding the comment on tls_client_auth_san_ip, some other reviewers have suggested using the using the IPv6 Address Text Representation described in RFC 5952 rather than the one from in RFC 4291. Which I think makes sense to do. Maybe also with a

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-17: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-17: 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

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp-06: Discuss 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

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-token-exchange-16: Discuss 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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-12: (with DISCUSS)

Thanks. I have entered a ballot of "no objection." /a On 10/19/18 4:15 PM, William Denniss wrote: Adam, Thank you for your feedback and pointers, version 13 should fully address your feedback.  Comments inline: On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Adam Roach <mailto:a...@nostru

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-12: (with DISCUSS)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-12: Discuss 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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 7/31/18 12:30 AM, Adam Roach wrote: §3.2: In response, the authorization server generates a device verification code and an end-user code that are valid for a limited time and includes them in the HTTP response body using the "application/json" format with a 200 (OK) s

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow-11: Discuss 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

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-09: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-09: 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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 1/24/18 2:07 PM, John Bradley wrote: Mike and I are discussing with the other authors how we can address this while minimising developer confusion, given that a large number of implementations use the existing construction. Thanks. I'm not unsympathetic to the deployment issues here, and

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 1/23/18 6:21 PM, Mike Jones wrote: -- DISCUSS: -- Thanks to everyone who worked on this specification. I think it's well-written, clear, and useful. I

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-08: Discuss 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

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: (with COMMENT)

On 6/2/17 21:25, William Denniss wrote: In my staged copy , I have followed your advice and reversed the recommendation ordering, and mentioned the caveats that the user's personalisations are not present in the

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: (with COMMENT)

William -- Thanks for your quick responses! I have only one follow-up (beyond my response to the thread that Alexey started): On 5/22/17 17:14, William Denniss wrote: My understanding of the Web Authentication Broker is that it is effectively a special-case browser designed for

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: (with COMMENT)

On 5/23/17 05:09, Alexey Melnikov wrote: On Tue, May 23, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Hi William, On 22 May 2017, at 23:14, William Denniss > wrote: Section 8.1 makes the statement that "Loopback IP based redirect URIs

[OAUTH-WG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-11: 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