<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<html><body>
<pre><strong>3.1.1. OpenID Request Object</strong>
It is not clear if "idt" member may include "fmt" sub-member.
I think the intent of the following paragraph is "yes", but is vague. We should clarify the para.
Draft 02:
The structure and function of the "idt" (ID Token request) member of the OpenID Request object is similar to that of the "inf" member. <span style="color: #ff0000;">It also contains an optional "clm" member, with the same structure as that for the "inf" member.</span> If the "clm" member is present in the "idt" object, the claims requested within it modify the default claim set that would otherwise be returned in the ID Token. Unlike for the "inf" member, typically these claims will augment, rather than override the default set.
Rewrite proposal:
The structure and function of the "idt" (ID Token request) member of the OpenID Request object is similar to that of the "inf" member. <span style="color: #ff0000;">It MAY include "clm", "fmt", "loc". The same structure of these members are the same as that for the "inf" member. </span>If the "clm" member is present in the "idt" object, the claims requested within it modify the default claim set that would otherwise be returned in the ID Token. Unlike for the "inf" member, typically these claims will augment, rather than override the default set.
</pre>
<pre>If it is the intent, I will provide the XML edit. </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>Also, if a little more extensive edit is allowed at this time, I would like to propose sub-sectioning 3.1.1 so that it will look like: </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre><strong>3.1.1. OpenID Request Object</strong></pre>
<pre><strong>3.1.1.1. "inf" member</strong></pre>
<pre><strong>3.1.1.2. "idt" member</strong></pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>It should make the section much more readable. </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>If the working group agrees, I will also provide the edit. </pre>
<pre><br /></pre>
<pre>=nat</pre>
</body></html>