Yes, indeed. And when I wrote "acceptable", I meant "in principle", not
verbatim ;-)
Nat
--
PLEASE READ :This e-mail is confidential and intended for the
named recipient only. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: OAuth [mailto:
Snip
> On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2) On page 9 the text states:
> The authorization request object MUST be either
>(a) JWS signed; or
>(b) JWE encrypted; or
>(c) JWS signed and JWE encrypted.
>
> This should be replaced by:
> The authorization
Hi,
Comments inline:
2017年1月4日(水) 1:52 Denis :
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I have only recently subscribed to this mailing list and hence I was not
> present when the WGLC was launched on this document.
>
>
> I have several concerns and comments about this draft :
>
>
>
>
> *1°. The draft will be unable to
Hello,
I have only recently subscribed to this mailing list and hence I was not
present when the WGLC was launched on this document.
I have several concerns and comments about this draft :
*1°. The draft will be unable to move to Draft Standard*
The Intended status of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsr
