Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

Thanks Brian and Justin! I will work on the shepherd writeup. Regards, Rifaat On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Campbell wrote: > Thanks Justin! > > I've just published a -11 draft > with these > changes (also listed below

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

Thanks Justin! I've just published a -11 draft with these changes (also listed below copied from the doc history section). Rifaat, I believe all the shepherd review comments have now been addressed. -11 * Updates addressing

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

Also, I wanted to take a moment to respond specifically to something in the shepherd’s review: > • The DPoP Proof contains a hash of the Access Token, and the Access Token > contains a hash of the public key in the DPoP Proof. Why do you need both? > Would one of these be sufficient? The

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

I think Brian’s just in Danial about this one, but we’ll let it slide. And I have in fact gone through and added text about ATH: https://github.com/danielfett/draft-dpop/pull/168 I opted to add this in the introduction of the section about using access tokens instead of a separate security

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

Brian, Thanks for all the hard work that you put into this important document. We do not mind it when you are vibrant; we know that you always have good intentions  Regards, Rifaat On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 6:44 PM Brian Campbell wrote: > Thanks Rifaat and others for the vibrant*

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

Apologies accepted! :-) Am 28.07.22 um 01:11 schrieb Brian Campbell: I need to make one more apology - this time for the incorrect spelling of Dr. Fett's name (should be Daniel not Danial). My apologies. On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 6:43 PM Brian Campbell wrote: Thanks Rifaat and others

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

I need to make one more apology - this time for the incorrect spelling of Dr. Fett's name (should be Daniel not Danial). My apologies. On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 6:43 PM Brian Campbell wrote: > Thanks Rifaat and others for the vibrant* discussions about the DPoP draft > in the side meeting

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

Thanks Rifaat! I will make those changes in the document source and come to Philly prepared to discuss the other items. One of the side meetings seems like a good forum for that, good idea. On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 11:14 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: > Thanks Brian! > See my replies inline below.

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

Thanks Brian! See my replies inline below. On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 6:52 PM Brian Campbell wrote: > Thanks for shepherding Rifaat. And apologies for the slow reply. My > attempts at answering questions and responding to comments are inline > below. > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:55 AM Rifaat

Re: [OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

Thanks for shepherding Rifaat. And apologies for the slow reply. My attempts at answering questions and responding to comments are inline below. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:55 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote: > The following is my review as a document shepherd: > > Section 4.3 > > Last sentence > >

[OAUTH-WG] DPoP - Document Shepherd Review

The following is my review as a document shepherd: Section 4.3 Last sentence Since the document uses “SHOULD”, this implies that there are some valid cases where this is not needed. Should a text be added to explain when this is not needed? Section 6.1 1. First sentence - what is the