Hello OAUTH,
I am one of the Designated Experts for the IANA media types registry.
draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt was approved by the IESG and is
in the RFC Editor queue. It creates the media types structured syntax
suffix "sd-jwt". We have received a request by the W3C to register
"
Hi Mike,
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 11:01 PM Michael Jones
wrote:
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
>
> I concur strongly enough with John Scudder's comment about the IANA
> reg
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:57 AM Daniel Fett wrote:
>
> Most of the SHOULDs here seem unsupported to me, in the sense that I'm not
> clear what interoperability breaks if I decide not to do what it says. Some
> prose about that would be helpful to include.
>
> Looking at the draft again, we have
Hi Vittorio, thanks for the quick response.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 11:11 PM Vittorio Bertocci <
vittorio.berto...@okta.com> wrote:
> On the SHOULD on top of S4. There are pretty common situations in which
> failing to get a response from an API is an acceptable outcome, and
> presenting an inter
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 11:31 PM Mike Jones
wrote:
> I hear you about the BCP 14 usage, but at the same time, I think that the
> (single) use of MUST is appropriate. Furthermore, its usage there was
> suggested to us by Roman in his AD review. Therefore, I'm prone to leave
> it as is.
>
Fine wi
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Eran Hammer
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:19 AM
> To: SM
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Encoding of Errors in the Base and in the Bearer Spec
>
> Don't know. In the 5 RFCs
The above-named draft has been offered as the recommended path forward in terms
of converging on a single document to advance through appsawg. The
conversation I saw this week in that regard has seemed mostly positive.
Please review it, or at least the diff, and indicate your support or objecti
Fair enough, carry on. :)
From: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:54 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; oauth@ietf.org WG; Apps Discuss
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
On 19 April 2012 18
By all means people should correct me if they think I'm wrong about this, but
so far from monitoring the discussion there seems to be general support for
focusing on WebFinger and developing it to meet the needs of those who have
deployed SWD, versus the opposite.
Does anyone want to argue the
:
What is the deployment status of these two specs? Is either deployed
much at all? -T
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy
mailto:m...@cloudmark.com>> wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:apps-discuss-boun...@
> -Original Message-
> From: apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:23 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org WG
> Cc: Apps Discuss
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [OAUTH-WG] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
