Seems to be similar to the intentions of:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8176
and/or
https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-modrna-authentication-1_0-06.html
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 7:45 AM Jaimandeep Singh wrote:
> Dear Aaron and esteemed members,
>
>
I didn't mean to imply "you" were writing it off and you are probably right
technology may not be able to solve it, I was just looking for ways we
might help?
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:21 AM Aaron Parecki wrote:
> > Sure, you could write it off as &qu
oincide with the specifications might be in order.
Just spend some time on https://stackexchange.com/filters/4229/oauth and
you will see the issue and struggles.
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:46 AM Aaron Parecki wrote:
> > You type your email address into {The Bat} to b
I support addoption
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:09 AM Dominick Baier
wrote:
> I support adoption
>
> ———
> Dominick Baier
>
> On 16. July 2020 at 01:54:08, William Denniss (
> wdenniss=40google@dmarc.ietf.org) wrote:
>
> I support adoption.
&g
I support the adoption of DPoP.
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 8:21 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
wrote:
> All,
>
> As per the conclusion of the PoP interim meeting, this is a call for
> adoption for the *OAuth 2.0 Demonstration of Proof-of-Possession at the
> Applicat
I support adoption.
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 3:36 PM Dick Hardt wrote:
> I support adoption
> ᐧ
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 12:32 PM Richard Backman, Annabelle 40amazon@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> I support adoption.
>>
>>
>>
>
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 5:56 PM Brian Campbell wrote:
> There are a few occurrences of [!@RFC...] which presumably come from a
> typo in the markdown source for mmark (switching the order of '@' and
> '!').
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NO
e (see, for example,
[EV-CERTS])."
And I believe this is the more common practice.
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/175786/is-it-required-to-have-the-same-domain-name-and-common-name-for-ssl-certificate/175788#175788
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 4:55 PM Filip Skoka
+1 for the change.
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:36 PM Dick Hardt wrote:
> + 1 to the change
>
> I'd suggest we work to define terms such as "sender constrained" in the
> BCP so that it is clear what is meant by it.
>
> On Fri, Nov 3
Thanks for all the feedback.
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:02 AM, John Bradley wrote:
> urn:ietf:wg:oauth:2.0:oob is a google thing that is not part of the OAuth
> 2 specification.
>
> I think it was mostly a windows thing.
>
> It is not a real redirect U
://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-dev/2014-May/001814.html
- https://github.com/doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper/issues/514
- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09974.html
Should it be registered or defined?
(or am I missing something?)
With best regards,
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
+1 for adoption
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
wrote:
> All,
>
> We would like to get a confirmation on the mailing list for the adoption
> of the *JSON Web Token Best Current Practices* as a WG document
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/do
I know we add scopes based on the Authorization Server determining that the
Resource Owner is also a "Paying Customer". (Well using OIDC so we KNOW
they are a paying customer.)
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:03 PM, William Denniss wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at
+!
I agree this is needed.
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:33 PM, John Bradley wrote:
> I am in favour of adoption.
> > On Feb 2, 2017, at 4:09 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this is the call for adoption of
o take reasonable
precautions to ensure they are in control of the portion of the
namespace they use to define the name.
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Vivek Biswas
wrote:
> +1 to *It MAY be an absolute URI*, as specified by Section 4.3 of
> [RFC3986]
Would a header be a concern if TLS was used for transportation?
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Phil Hunt (IDM)
wrote:
> A header might open another attack vector. Better to parse the jwt and
> look for the issuer assuming the jwt validates.
>
> Phil
>
&g
Why not register JWT as an access token type
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters/oauth-parameters.xhtml#token-types>
and then the the Issuer is implied?
--
-jim
Jim Willeke
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Mike Schwartz wrote:
> Kawasaki-san,
>
> This is a reall
17 matches
Mail list logo
