I'll add it to the discovery draft in the next day or so.  Also, please see my 
questions in the message "[OAUTH-WG] Discovery document updates planned". I was 
waiting for that feedback before doing the update.

Thanks,
-- Mike
________________________________
From: William Denniss<mailto:wdenn...@google.com>
Sent: ‎1/‎25/‎2016 2:29 PM
To: John Bradley<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>
Cc: Nat Sakimura<mailto:sakim...@gmail.com>; 
oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>; Mike 
Jones<mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Advertise PKCE support in OAuth 2.0 Discovery 
(draft-jones-oauth-discovery-00)

OK great! It seems that we have consensus on this. So this is what we plan to 
add to our discovery doc, based on this discussion:

"code_challenge_methods_supported": ["plain","S256"]

What are the next steps? Can we we add it to 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-oauth-discovery directly? I see that 
the IANA registry created by that draft is "Specification Required", but PKCE 
is already an RFC without this param being registered.


On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:11 PM, John Bradley 
<ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
Yes sorry.   code_challenge_method is the query parameter so 
code_challenge_methods_supported


On Jan 25, 2016, at 6:12 PM, William Denniss 
<wdenn...@google.com<mailto:wdenn...@google.com>> wrote:



On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:17 AM, John Bradley 
<ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
The code_challenge and code_challenge_method parameter names predate calling 
the spec PKCE.

Given that some of us deployed early versions of PKCE in products and 
opensource to mitigate the problem before the spec was completed we decided not 
to rename the parameter names from code_verifier_method to pkce_verifier_method.

For consistency we should stick with code_verifier_methods_supported in 
discovery.

To clarify, did you mean "code_challenge_methods_supported"?  That is, building 
on the param name "code_challenge_method" from Section 
4.3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7636#section-4.3>?


John B.

On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:12 AM, William Denniss 
<wdenn...@google.com<mailto:wdenn...@google.com>> wrote:

"code_challenge_methods_supported" definitely works for me.

Any objections to moving forward with that? I would like to update our 
discovery doc shortly.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nat Sakimura 
<sakim...@gmail.com<mailto:sakim...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Ah, OK. That's actually reasonable.

2016?1?21?(?) 9:31 nov matake <mat...@gmail.com<mailto:mat...@gmail.com>>:
I prefer “code_challenge_methods_supported”, since the registered parameter 
name is “code_challenge_method”, not “pkce_method".

On Jan 19, 2016, at 11:58, William Denniss 
<wdenn...@google.com<mailto:wdenn...@google.com>> wrote:

Seems like we agree this should be added. How should it look?

Two ideas:

"code_challenge_methods_supported": ["plain", "S256"]

or

"pkce_methods_supported": ["plain", "S256"]



On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt 
<tors...@lodderstedt.net<mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net>> wrote:
+1


Am 06.01.2016 um 18:25 schrieb William Denniss:
+1

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:40 AM, John Bradley 
<ve7...@ve7jtb.com<mailto:ve7...@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
Good point.  Now that PKCE is a RFC we should add it to discovery.

John B.
> On Jan 6, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov 
> <vladi...@connect2id.com<mailto:vladi...@connect2id.com>> wrote:
>
> I just noticed PKCE support is missing from the discovery metadata.
>
> Is it a good idea to add it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vladimir
>
> --
> Vladimir Dzhuvinov
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth




_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth



_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth




_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Reply via email to