Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft-lodderstedt-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-00.txt

Hi Neil, > Am 28.03.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Neil Madden : > > I like this draft, but I want to clarify if it is intended that the response > JWT could be interpreted as an OpenID Connect ID Token? As the set of claims > can overlap (in particular, all required ID token claims are valid token > i

Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft-lodderstedt-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-00.txt

HI Petteri, thanks for your feedback. I incorporated it in the upcoming revision. kind regards, Torsten. > Am 26.03.2018 um 11:02 schrieb Petteri Stenius > : > > Hi all, > > I want to show my support for this proposal > > > I believe the two use cases presented at the IETF meeting [1]

Re: [OAUTH-WG] New Version Notification for draft-lodderstedt-oauth-jwt-introspection-response-00.txt

Hi Torsten, > On 25 May 2018, at 10:35, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote: > > Hi Neil, > >> Am 28.03.2018 um 17:41 schrieb Neil Madden : >> >> I like this draft, but I want to clarify if it is intended that the response >> JWT could be interpreted as an OpenID Connect ID Token? As the set of claims

Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAUTB for Access Token in Implicit Grant

Ok, thanks! - Daniel Am 24.05.18 um 23:57 schrieb Brian Campbell: > Yeah, that's what is implied. At least given the way that > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tokbind-https provides to > signal to the client to reveal the Referred Token Binding. > > I've heard that there's some potential