Thanks. I will dig it up.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:54 Bill Mills wrote:
> I sent some feedback on that section in a different message on list.
>
>
> On Friday, November 14, 2014 12:41 PM, Nat Sakimura
> wrote:
>
>
> That pretty much was the conclusion we reached. I believe that it was what
>
I sent some feedback on that section in a different message on list.
On Friday, November 14, 2014 12:41 PM, Nat Sakimura
wrote:
That pretty much was the conclusion we reached. I believe that it was what the
F2F room inclined to. So, for -04, we added a section on error response but
That pretty much was the conclusion we reached. I believe that it was what
the F2F room inclined to. So, for -04, we added a section on error response
but it doesn't have those granular errors.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 07:07 John Bradley wrote:
> Nat and I discussed it yesterday and I am still pe
Nat and I discussed it yesterday and I am still personally unconvinced
that the errors from the authorization endpoint are helpful. So I am
personally against adding specific errors for S256_unsupported
On Nov 14, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> I find not much, if any.
>
>
> On
I find not much, if any.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 06:27 Brian Campbell
wrote:
> I struggle to see the value in adding more fine grained machine readable
> error messages for this.
>
> Do we really want clients to try and negotiate the code_challenge_method
> using browser redirects? Especially
I struggle to see the value in adding more fine grained machine readable
error messages for this.
Do we really want clients to try and negotiate the code_challenge_method
using browser redirects? Especially in light of the fact that we'll likely
also be discouraging AS's from redirecting on some e
be asked to support algorithm agility (for instance, being
able to use SHA-3-256).
-- Mike From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 AM
To: oauth
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Add
gt;
> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Nat Sakimura
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 AM
> *To:* oauth
> *Subject:* [OAUTH-WG] Adding machine readable errors to SPOP?
>
>
>
> As discussed at F2F today at IETF 91 OAuth WG, there has been som
).
-- Mike
From: OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 AM
To: oauth
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Adding machine readable errors to SPOP?
As discussed at F2F today at IETF 91 OAuth WG, there has been some request to
As discussed at F2F today at IETF 91 OAuth WG, there has been some request
to have a more fine grained machine readable error messages.
Currently, it only returns the error defined in RFC6749 and any more
details is supposed to be returned in error_descripton and error_uri.
So, I came up with the
10 matches
Mail list logo
