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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 17:43:16 -0700

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://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-device-flow/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to the authors for addressing my comments and half of my DISCUSS.
This final issue appears to remain unaddressed:

§3.1:

>  The client initiates the flow by requesting a set of verification
>  codes from the authorization server by making an HTTP "POST" request
>  to the device authorization endpoint.  The client constructs the
>  request with the following parameters, encoded with the "application/
>  x-www-form-urlencoded" content type:

This document needs a normative citation for this media type.

My suggestion would be to cite REC-html5-20141028 section 4.10.22.6, as this
appears to be the most recent stable description of how to encode this media
type. I'd love to hear rationale behind other citations being more appropriate,
since I'm not entirely happy with the one I suggest above (given that it's been
superseded by HTML 5.2); but every other plausible citation I can find is even
less palatable (with HTML 5.2 itself having the drawback of not actually
defining how to encode the media type, instead pointing to an unstable,
unversioned document).