Last Call Review of draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-oauth-discovery
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-10-09
Requested 2017-09-25
Authors Michael Jones, Nat Sakimura, John Bradley
Draft last updated 2017-10-01
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Shwetha Bhandari (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Donald Eastlake (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-oauth-discovery-07-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-10-01
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2017-10-01


Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-07

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

Document: draft-ietf-oauth-discovery-07.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-10-02
IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-09
IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: Ready


As far as my competence goes, I have no issues with this draft.
Just for fun, I checked that the JSON example works as the
value of a GRASP objective (draft-ietf-anima-grasp) with the
GRASP prototype code. And yes, of course it does, so we could
map OAuth over the ANIMA discover/synchronize model if we wanted.

FWIW there are a couple of errors in the shepherd's writeup:

> This document does not request any actions by IANA.
> 18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
> useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
> None.

Wrong, there are extensive IANA considerations and a requirement
for multiple Designated Experts.

> There is no text in formal languages in the document. 

Maybe not, but there is a JSON example (which as noted
above seems to be fine).