[OAUTH-WG] Nit in section 4 of draft 13 of SD-JWT

Section 4 of draft 13 of the SD-JWT WG document says: As an alternative illustration of the SD-JWT format, for those who celebrate, ABNF [RFC5234] for the SD-JWT, SD-JWT+KB, and various constituent parts is provided here: Who are those who celebrate? Those that celebrate birthdays, Midsummer, Hal

Re: [OAUTH-WG] nit RFC 7662 Errata?

It’s definitely a mistake, and I think an errata is the right track for it. Not positive though — chairs? — Justin > On Jun 20, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Brian Campbell > wrote: > > Some good irony in that message as I made a very similar mistake. The "IANA > Considerations RFC 7591 / Token Intros

Re: [OAUTH-WG] nit RFC 7662 Errata?

Some good irony in that message as I made a very similar mistake. The "IANA Considerations RFC 7591 / Token Introspection" link/text should say "IANA Considerations RFC 7591 / Client Registration ". Sigh. On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Brian Camp

[OAUTH-WG] nit RFC 7662 Errata?

Because of my earlier message about act and may_act also being registered for Introspection Endpoint responses I was looking at the IANA Considerations of RFC 7662 and it seems like some text in the 2nd paragraph of Sec 3.1

[OAUTH-WG] nit

Just noticed an extra "and" in Draft 26 Sec 4.1.3 redirect_uri REQUIRED, if the "redirect_uri" parameter was included in the authorization request as described in Section 4.1.1, and their values MUST be identical. Eliminating the and would be better. It would also

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Nit: Language in section 1.1

I have no objection, but "much clearer"? :-) EHL > -Original Message- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Justin Richer > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:04 AM > To: Greg Brail > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject:

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Nit: Language in section 1.1

+1, this wording is much clearer to me, too -- justin On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 19:25 -0400, Greg Brail wrote: > This part of section 1.1 is confusing to me and I stumble whenever I > read it – I see that Brian Eaton suggested looking at it a while back > but I don’t think it got changed: > > >

[OAUTH-WG] Nit: Language in section 1.1

This part of section 1.1 is confusing to me and I stumble whenever I read it – I see that Brian Eaton suggested looking at it a while back but I don’t think it got changed: “OAuth includes four roles working together to grant and provide access to protected resources - access restricted reso