Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:22:44 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- 2.1, assertion parameter: How come this one does not talk
about base64url whereas the saml one does?

---

From: Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:10:56 -0600

A JWT, by it's very definition, is a set of base64url pieces concatenated
together with dot "." characters (which is also URL safe). So no additional
encoding or serialization of the JWT is needed.

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
wrote:

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:13:34 +0100

Ah fair enough, forgot that.

S.