Finally, we added PKCE S256 support on our implementation. Best,
Nat 2015年2月20日(金)、7:28 Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com>: > I can't comment with any authority on product road-map (that's above my > pay-grade) but I can speculate that we probably would support "S256" > eventually. > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig < > hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Thanks Brian for pointing me to Section 4.4.1 and to the MTI for "S256". >> While this is good from a security point of view I am wondering whether >> anyone is actually compliant to the specification. Neither PingIdentity >> nor DT implements the S256 transform, if I understood that correctly. >> Are you guys going planning to update your implementations? >> >> Ciao >> Hannes >> >> On 02/18/2015 05:45 PM, Brian Campbell wrote: >> > There's a bit of MTI talk tucked into >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-10#section-4.4.1 that >> > perhaps needs to be expanded and/or placed somewhere else. >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig >> > <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks for the info, Torsten. >> > >> > Your feedback raises an interesting question, namely what >> functionality >> > the parties have to implement to claim conformance to the >> specification. >> > >> > Quickly scanning through the specification didn't tell me whether >> it is >> > OK to just implement the plain mode or whether both modes are >> > mandatory-to-implement. We have to say something about this. >> > >> > Ciao >> > Hannes >> > >> > >> > On 02/18/2015 02:16 PM, tors...@lodderstedt.net >> > <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: >> > > Hi Hannes, >> > > >> > > our implementation supports the "plain" mode only. We just >> verified >> > > compliance of our implementation with the current spec. As the >> only >> > > deviation, we do not enforce the minimum length of 43 characters >> > of the >> > > code verifier. >> > > >> > > kind regards, >> > > Torsten. >> > > >> > > Am 17.02.2015 17:48, schrieb Hannes Tschofenig: >> > >> Hi Torsten, >> > >> >> > >> does this mean that your implementation is not compliant with the >> > >> current version anymore or that you haven't had time to verify >> > whether >> > >> there are differences to the earlier version? >> > >> >> > >> Ciao >> > >> Hannes >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On 01/31/2015 05:34 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote: >> > >>> Deutsche Telekom also implemented an early version of the draft >> last >> > >>> year. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Am 30.01.2015 um 18:50 schrieb Brian Campbell >> > >>> <bcampb...@pingidentity.com <mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com> >> > <mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com >> > <mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>>>: >> > >>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Hannes Tschofenig >> > >>>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> >> > <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net >> > <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>>> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> 1) What implementations of the spec are you aware of? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> We have an AS side implementation of an earlier draft that was >> > >>>> released in June of last year: >> > >>>> >> > >> http://documentation.pingidentity.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=26706844 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> OAuth mailing list >> > >>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org >> > <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>> >> > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
