+1. I agree this is ready. PhilOn May 17, 2024, at 1:35 PM, Giuseppe De Marco wrote:+1 for publicationIl giorno mer 15 mag 2024 alle ore 16:11 Rifaat Shekh-Yusef ha scritto:All,This is a second WG Last Call for the OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource Metadata document (the
Hi Neil,
Thanks for publishing this, it's really great and will be most helpful.
The explanation of when the server uses DPoP and therefore when the client
uses DPoP is pretty clear, but is it the intent that the HTTP-based
protocols MUST use DPoP or is that really a RECOMMENDED for HTTP-based
I’ve opened a new issue to discuss Transaction Token Service deployment
models:
https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/issues/96
I’ve added one comment. Please consider adding different deployments models
(or comment on the one I added) as this will help determine if more text is
As a co-author of the draft, I believe we've addressed all the first WGLC
comments and that this is ready for publication. Thanks!
Aaron
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:05 AM Michael Jones
wrote:
> Having addressed the first WGLC comments in -04 and adding a pretty
> diagram in -05, I believe this
+1 for publication
Il giorno mer 15 mag 2024 alle ore 16:11 Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <
rifaat.s.i...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> All,
>
> This is a *second* *WG Last Call* for the *OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource
> Metadata* document (the previous one was for v03.).
>
What an awesome coincidence. We at GMX and WEB.DE are currently working on
OAuth support for our mail servers as well and already see the issue in getting
the clients to properly configure and connect with mail servers via OAuth. We
will definitely look into the proposal and are happy to give