...
- Comment Reference: The GitHub repository issue number of the comment and possibly a reference to a subpart of that issue. All issues relevant to the Public Comment and IPR Review period use both the label "V2.0" and the label "public comment period". The content of all comments has been stored in GitHub.
- Specification Reference(s): A reference such as "Grant Sec n.n" or "FedAuthz Sec n.n". "Grant" refers to User-Managed Access (UMA) 2.0 Grant for OAuth 2.0 Authorization revision 05 and "FedAuthz" refers to Federated Authorization for User-Managed Access (UMA) 2.0 revision 05, the Draft Recommendations under review. Note that issues relevant to each specification have been labeled "grant" and "fedauthz", respectively.
- Editorial or Technical: Whether the comment involves an editorial change (generally a minor clarifying change to wording) or a technical one (generally a substantive change that may require extensive implementation work). Note that a label of "editorial" has been applied to issues that appear, at first blush, to be editorial.
- Disposition: The Work Group's conclusion about the action to take in response to the comment.
- Additional Notes: Where additional context Context that may be helpful for the Leadership Council, notes are provided here.
| Comment Reference | Specification Reference(s) | Editorial or Technical | Disposition | Notes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #326 | Grant Sec 1.3 | Editorial | Edit in commit (candidate) | Editorial improvement to a spec definition suggested by a WG participant; discussed by several WG participants and consensus rapidly gained. | |||
| #327 | Grant Sec 3.3.6 | Editorial | Edit in commit (candidate) | Simple editorial alignment in wording suggested by a WG participants; discussed by several WG participants and consensus rapidly gained. | |||
| #328 | Grant Sec 3.3.4 | Editorial | Edit in commit (candidate) | Interpretation issue suggested by a WG participant; discussed thoroughly by WG and an editorial enhancement removing ambiguity adopted by the WG. | |||
#329 | Grant 7.4.1 | Editorial | Edit in commit (candidate) | Incorrect cross-reference noted by a WG participant; fix applied without WG intervention required. | |||
| #330 | FedAuthz Sec 9.2 | Editorial | No change | Simple editorial correction suggested by a WG participant; fix overcome by events (#334). | |||
| #331 | FedAuthz Sec 9.3 | Editorial | Edit in commit | Simple editorial correction suggested by a WG participant; fix applied without WG intervention required. | |||
| #332 | Grant (various) | Editorial | No change | The commenter Commenter suggested adding clarifying wording after the fashion of RFC 6749 refresh token wording. Since a poll during UMA telecon 2017-07-20 of implementers on the meaning of the existing wording (including, implicitly, the commenter) effectively produced a consistent interpretation, we decided not to add any wording. | |||
| #333 | Grant Sec 3.3.6 | Editorial | Edit in commit | Simple editorial enhancement suggested by a WG participant, readily accepted by the WG. | |||
| #334 | FedAuthz Sec 1, FedAuthz Sec 9.2 | Editorial | Edit in commit | ||||
| #335 | |||||||
| #336 | |||||||
| #337 |