Subject: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-12

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:26:46 +0100

Hi Mike, Hi all,

I was just trying to find out whether version -12 of the JWT spec 
addresses prior comments and the diff version of the document does not 
really give that indication. To me it seems that version -12 of the 
document was published to update -11 in an attempt to create an 
alignment with the JOSE work.

I believe it would be useful to respond to the review comments so that 
we can be sure that those had been taken into account (or that they had 
been rejected for a good reason).

Here are the comments I have found:

* Review by James Manger:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg11905.html

* Review by Mishra Prateek:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12003.html

* My own shepherd review:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg12125.html

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Mike Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:13:14 +0000

-12 addresses a few of the review comments, but not the majority of them.  Those that it addresses are about "cty" and "typ". For instance, it does address Prateek's comment 2 (Why do we need both a "typ" claim and a "typ" header name?) and James' comment 7 (The doc redefines the "cty" header parameter).  (We no longer have both a "typ" claim and "typ" header parameter; "cty" is not redefined.)

The reality is that lately more of my time has gone into addressing the numerous JOSE comments, to try to get those documents that we depend upon to a stable point, than addressing the relatively small number of JWT comments.  But I will try to respond to the four sets of WGLC comments received this week, once my prep work for the JOSE meeting on Thursday is done.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:27 PM
To: [email-masked] WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-12

Hi Mike, Hi all,

I was just trying to find out whether version -12 of the JWT spec addresses prior comments and the diff version of the document does not really give that indication. To me it seems that version -12 of the document was published to update -11 in an attempt to create an alignment with the JOSE work.

I believe it would be useful to respond to the review comments so that we can be sure that those had been taken into account (or that they had been rejected for a good reason).

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth