Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-05 10:43 GMT+09:00 Manger, James : > > Title : Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients > > Filename: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09 > > > Some nits on this draft: > > 1. 42 chars. > The lower lim

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

> Title : Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients > Filename: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09 Some nits on this draft: 1. 42 chars. The lower limit of 42 chars for code_verifier: is not mentioned in prose

[OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients Authors : Nat Sakimura

Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

Yes that is what it is. I didn’t know that the HTML was produced based on the TEXT doc rather than the XML. I have fixed that and a couple of others in the doc. I am trying to find a way to test it with rfcmarkup before updating. John B. > On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Brian Campbell > wro

Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

I *think* this is the same formatting issue that is discussed, with a way to work around it, at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg04571.html On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:26 AM, John Bradley wrote: > I will take a look at it today. I was using the local python version I > think.

Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

I will take a look at it today. I was using the local python version I think. John B. > On Feb 3, 2015, at 11:38 PM, Nat Sakimura wrote: > > Hmmm. A bug at ietf.org rendering engine? > Perhaps we may repeat of RFC4648 again there to avoid this behaviour. > > 2015-02-04 1