Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 02:31:18 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-12: 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/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-jwsreq/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two minor questions:
- Should this document maybe update rfc6749?
- Should this be like this?
OLD
""request" and "request_uri" parameters MUST NOT be included in Request
Objects."
NEW
""request" and "request_uri" parameters MUST NOT be both included in 
Request Objects."

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:48:46 +0000

Hi Mirja,

> On 16 Feb 2017, at 10:31, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:

 (Snip)
> ""request" and "request_uri" parameters MUST NOT be both included in 

You can't have either. Your new text implies that including one of them is Ok, which is incorrect.

---

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:45:06 +0100

Hi Alexey,

sorry my fault, I read redirect_uri instead of request_uri and was confused...

Mirja