I prefer “code_challenge_methods_supported”, since the registered parameter name is “code_challenge_method”, not “pkce_method".
> On Jan 19, 2016, at 11:58, William Denniss <wdenn...@google.com> wrote: > > Seems like we agree this should be added. How should it look? > > Two ideas: > > "code_challenge_methods_supported": ["plain", "S256"] > > or > > "pkce_methods_supported": ["plain", "S256"] > > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <tors...@lodderstedt.net > <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net>> wrote: > +1 > > > Am 06.01.2016 um 18:25 schrieb William Denniss: >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:40 AM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com >> <mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote: >> Good point. Now that PKCE is a RFC we should add it to discovery. >> >> John B. >> > On Jan 6, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladi...@connect2id.com >> > <mailto:vladi...@connect2id.com>> wrote: >> > >> > I just noticed PKCE support is missing from the discovery metadata. >> > >> > Is it a good idea to add it? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Vladimir >> > >> > -- >> > Vladimir Dzhuvinov >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OAuth mailing list >> > OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> <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
