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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-oauth-amr-values-05 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2017-01-26 IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-13 IESG Telechat date:2017-01-32 Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. It is generally well written, with much better guidelines for expert reviewers than I typically see. Disclaimer: I'm not well versed in JSON Web Tokens, so I have not considered the pros/cons of having this registry or of the specific values being registered. I have focused on the mechanics of the draft. Issues: Major: 0 Minor: 1 Nits: 0 (1) Minor: Section 6.1 says: IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Experts and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing list. This is inconsistent with the way IANA Expert Review works, as defined in section 3 of RFC5226. Requests go through some channel (e.g. IESG review for standards track RFCs) to the editor and then IANA actions requiring expert review are referred to a designated expert. The expert then approves or denies the request, and approved requests are acted upon by IANA. Direction of requests to a mailing list is not an IANA function, but could be done by the expert. Please revise the text and procedures to be consistent with the way Expert Review is intended to work. (Note: In my earlier last call review of this document I erroneously cited RFC5526 rather than RFC5226. I have corrected that above.)