I'm adding the working group to this thread so they're aware of the discussion. Replies are inline below...
> From: Brian Campbell [mailto:brian.d.campb...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 7:52 AM > To: Barry Leiba > Cc: Benoit Claise; The IESG; oauth-cha...@tools.ietf.org; > draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bea...@tools.ietf.org; Tom Taylor > Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-21: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Works for me. I've been uncertain about 6755 as informative vs. normative and > am more than happy to take Barry's suggestion of making it informative. > > I don't think it's been raised but the same situation with 6755 is in > draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bearer-10 too. I assume a parallel change there is > desirable? Yes, we'd want to make the parallel change. -- Mike > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No objection on the document itself, but, as rightly noted by Tom Taylor > > in the OPS-DIR review: > > Process issue: IDnits complains of a normative reference to Informational > > document RFC 6755. This was NOT noted in the Last Call announcement (but > > was noted in the Shepherd writeup). No operational issue identified > > beyond what is already covered by the Interoperability Considerations > > section. > > I think the right answer here is to make 6755 an informative > reference: it's not needed to understand this document, and is only > used as a reference to the document where the namespace was created. > > Barry _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
