All,
Please, let us know if you have any topics that you would like to present
and discuss in Vancouver.
Regards,
Rifaat & Hannes
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
Hi!
I would like to discuss DPoP, the Security BCP, and give a brief update
about the activities at the FAPI working group.
-Daniel
Am 20.01.20 um 16:32 schrieb Rifaat Shekh-Yusef:
> All,
>
> Please, let us know if you have any topics that you would like to
> present and discuss in Vancouver.
>
Hi Rifaat,
I would like to present draft-ietf-oauth-par, draft-lodderstedt-oauth-rar, and
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response (if we did not manage to move it
forward by then).
best regards,
Torsten.
> On 20. Jan 2020, at 16:32, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Please, let us
I would like to discuss the Browser app BCP as well as the new draft which
got bumped from the agenda in Singapore:
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-parecki-oauth-client-intermediary-metadata
Aaron Parecki
aaronparecki.com
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:34 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
wrote:
> All,
As many of you know, Annabelle and I have put forward a general-purpose HTTP
Signing specification in the HTTP Working Group, at least initially based on
the old Cavage signatures spec that’s been used in the wild. We expect a number
of important changes to happen as it goes through the standard
Hi,
Sorry for me answering in this direct manner instead of via the OAUTH mailing
list or so.
I would like to point a practical issue out wrt the HTTP signature spec. I have
got practical experience with the spec through my work for ING in our PSD2
(European electronic banking scheme) platfor
I am trying to deal with some of the various confirmation methods for a POP
token. The question that I have is about the format of the JOSE Encrypted
value to be used. The document has an example of a compact serialization
for this concept, it does not have an example of a JSON serialization. T
Never mind, I just saw the answer.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Schaad
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:57 AM
To: 'draft-ietf-oauth-proof-of-possess...@ietf.org'
Cc: 'oauth'
Subject: Question for encrypted POP Key
I am trying to deal with some of the various confirmation methods for
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
Hi Annabelle,
Sure TLS is not th one size fits all but if you swap out Client Y signs /
authenticates message A to recipient X by: Client Y uses TLS for
authentication of the source (itself), integrity of data / communications and
even confidentiality (not really needed in our HTTP signing
To be honest I’m somewhat taken aback by this reaction. The request was for
time to discuss an alternative PoP mechanism face-to-face. This is a topic
which has come up in the context of other work (e.g., DPoP) at several recent
IETF meetings, including the last one in Singapore. While I recogni
https://adguard.com/de/versions/android/release.html?utm_source=android&utm_medium=activity_about&utm_campaign=versionhistory
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
I'd like 5 minutes to see what the interest in Reciprocal OAuth is, if any.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:33 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
wrote:
> All,
>
> Please, let us know if you have any topics that you would like to present
> and discuss in Vancouver.
>
> Regards,
> Rifaat & Hannes
>
> _
14 matches
Mail list logo
