Okay, so I retract the idea of metadata indicating the hash alg/cnf method
(based on John pointing out that it doesn't really make sense).
That still leaves the question of whether or not to define additional
confirmation methods in this document (and if so, what they would be though
x5t#S384 and
Thanks. Will do.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> I would go ahead and put them in. The blog post might get some
> pushback, but I think there's plenty of precedent for academic
> papers.
>
> -Ben
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:34:23AM -0600, Brian Campbell wrote:
> > Th
I would go ahead and put them in. The blog post might get some
pushback, but I think there's plenty of precedent for academic
papers.
-Ben
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 09:34:23AM -0600, Brian Campbell wrote:
> Thanks for the text, Neil. And the nit on the text, Ben. I'll include it in
> the next draf
+1 - It will makes thinks much simpler.
> Am 19.04.2018 um 00:58 schrieb Mike Jones :
>
> I’m OK with this change, given it makes the OAuth suite of specs more
> self-consistent.
>
>-- Mike
>
> From: OAuth On Behalf Of Brian Campbell
>
