Subject: [kitten] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth-22: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 11:55:10 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth-22: 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-kitten-sasl-oauth/

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

[All of the comments below have been addressed by the authors]

-- section 1, description of step A:

if the preferred way is different than the diagram, why not show it the
preferred way in the diagram in the first place?

-- 1, 2nd to last paragraph

The "SHOULD" means the reference to I-D.ietf-oauth-dyn-reg needs to be be
normative.

-- 3: "Such a new SASL OAuth mechanism can be added by simply
   registering the new name(s)"

Register them where?

-- 3.2, 2nd paragraph : "... known to the application."

Known to the "resource server"?

Editorial Stuff:

-- 3.1, "Port":

I assume that means the destination port to which the client connected?
(similar to Host?)

-- 3.1.1 "Post": default value is "". 

Does "" represent an empty string?

-- 3.2, first sentence"

s/" ... according the specification..." / "... according to the
specification..."

- 5: "Lifetime of the appliation sessions"

s/appliation/application

"It is possible that SASL will be authenticating..."

s/"... be authenticating..." / "... be used to authenticate..."