For refresh_token_expires_in, the argument seems to hinge on the idea that
"client can't do anything useful with the knowledge of the refresh token
expiration time". But that isn't the case, as we have received
several requests from clients to expose this information so that the client
can remind t
For the 3.2.3 Token Response, I believe it is quite clear why that should
be rejected via this great response from Aaron:
https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-v2-1/issues/187#issuecomment-2350781735
For 3.2.4 access_denied, I believe the current solution is a 401 or 403
status code, isn't it? Adding
Hi all,
I am new to IETF so apologies if I'm not doing this correctly. I had a few
suggestions for things to add to the 2.1 spec based on scenarios
encountered from running a large authorization server. Let me know your
thoughts or if I should be using a different channel (like github) to
contribu
+1 on advancing the draft.
CONFIDENTIAL
-Original Message-
From: Watson Ladd
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 12:09 PM
To: Brian Campbell
Cc: oauth ; oauth-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Re: -15 of SD-JWT
EXTERNAL EMAIL
After discussion with the authors we've agreed that editori
After discussion with the authors we've agreed that editorial
improvements, including to the security considerations section, can
happen later in the process, and that it shouldn't prevent advancing
the draft.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 7:25 PM Watson Ladd wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> I'm glad we've finall
+1 Paul
Likewise believe this is ready to progress
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025, 12:04 Paul Bastian wrote:
> I agree that the draft is ready to progress. I also agree with Brian that
> the privacy considerations are good enough and have been for several months
> already and are beyond what the average I
I agree that the draft is ready to progress. I also agree with Brian
that the privacy considerations are good enough and have been for
several months already and are beyond what the average IETF Draft is
providing.
On 29.01.25 16:48, Brent Zundel wrote:
fwiw, I also believe the draft is ready
fwiw, I also believe the draft is ready to progress.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:17 PM Brian Campbell wrote:
> Watson,
>
> I think perhaps there's a misalignment of goals here.
>
> My perspective is that the privacy considerations are good enough (and
> have been for several months now) for the dr
