Hi Murray,
I hear you about the BCP 14 usage, but at the same time, I think that the
(single) use of MUST is appropriate. Furthermore, its usage there was
suggested to us by Roman in his AD review. Therefore, I'm prone to leave it as
is.
All the best,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:07 PM
To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-...@ietf.org; oauth-cha...@ietf.org;
oauth@ietf.org; rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com
Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-03: (with COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri-03: 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
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-jwk-thumbprint-uri/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One suggestion: This document cites BCP 14, and then barely uses it (there's
just one "MUST", and nothing else). In my view, you could replace "MUST be"
with "are" and then drop all the BCP 14 boilerplate, with the same effect.
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
