Re: [DISCUSS] - Support Bearer authorization for JWT tokens?

2017-06-23 Thread Francesco Chicchiriccò
On 23/06/2017 12:14, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote: OK fair enough, here is the JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-112 Thanks! How do we maintain the release notes? Not very efficiently ATM, I'd say: essentially, in the release process, there are some steps where commits

Re: [DISCUSS] - Support Bearer authorization for JWT tokens?

2017-06-23 Thread Colm O hEigeartaigh
OK fair enough, here is the JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-1120 How do we maintain the release notes? Colm. On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò < ilgro...@apache.org> wrote: > On 23/06/2017 11:17, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017

Re: [DISCUSS] - Support Bearer authorization for JWT tokens?

2017-06-23 Thread Francesco Chicchiriccò
On 23/06/2017 11:17, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote: On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote: +1 for the "Bearer" Authorization header proposal, more standards are welcome :-) Since we introduced JWT in 2.0.3, I am not sure whether it makes sense to keep

Re: [DISCUSS] - Support Bearer authorization for JWT tokens?

2017-06-23 Thread Colm O hEigeartaigh
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote: > +1 for the "Bearer" Authorization header proposal, more standards are > welcome :-) > > Since we introduced JWT in 2.0.3, I am not sure whether it makes sense to > keep supporting the X-Syncope-Token header

Re: [DISCUSS] - Support Bearer authorization for JWT tokens?

2017-06-23 Thread Francesco Chicchiriccò
On 23/06/2017 10:34, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote: Hi all, Larry McCay from Apache Knox (amongst other projects) raised an interesting point here: https://twitter.com/lmccay/status/877981989638356992 Rather than use a custom header "X-Syncope-Token" to include the JWT token when invoking on the

[DISCUSS] - Support Bearer authorization for JWT tokens?

2017-06-23 Thread Colm O hEigeartaigh
Hi all, Larry McCay from Apache Knox (amongst other projects) raised an interesting point here: https://twitter.com/lmccay/status/877981989638356992 Rather than use a custom header "X-Syncope-Token" to include the JWT token when invoking on the Syncope REST services, we might as well instead