Thanks, Éric.
Reply inline:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:47 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-26: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses includ
Than you Nat for the quick reply and the fixes
Regards
-éric
From: Nat Sakimura
Date: Thursday, 13 August 2020 at 15:43
To: Eric Vyncke
Cc: The IESG , oauth , "oauth-cha...@ietf.org"
, "draft-ietf-oauth-jws...@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on
draft-ietf-oauth
Thanks Benjamin.
My replies inline below:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 12:53 AM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-26: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact
Dear Robert,
Thanks for the comment.
Internet Explorer limitation is interesting from the historical perspective
but can probably now safely removed as well.
We may want to put an example such as a Mobile App spawning external
browser to make an authorization request instead.
Cheers,
Nat
On Thu
You are welcome.
Actually, for 5.2, I should probably replace with more modern examples
instead of old phones and old Internet Explorer.
E.g., a) a mobile app making an authorization request through a mobile
browser; b) RAR.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:44 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
wrote:
> Than y
Murray, Thanks very much for your comment.
My replies inline:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 4:56 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-26: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep t
Hi Nat,
Also inline.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:25:27PM +0900, Nat Sakimura wrote:
>Thanks Benjamin.
>My replies inline below:
>On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 12:53 AM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
>
While some discussion of why explicit typing was not used might be useful
to have, that thread started with a request for security considerations
prohibiting use of the "sub" with a client ID value. Because such a request
JWT could be repurposed for JWT client authentication. And explicit typing
wo
Oops, that's my bad. Thanks for the correction -- I've linked to your
message in the datatracker (but didn't bother to have the datatracker send
a third copy of my updated-again ballot position).
-Ben
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 03:00:33PM -0600, Brian Campbell wrote:
> While some discussion of why
At Nat's request, I've created a pull request addressing Cross-JWT Confusion
security considerations. It addresses both Brian's comment and the IESG
comments about explicit typing. See the full PR at
https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-jwsreq/pull-requests/10. See the source diffs
at
https://bi
10 matches
Mail list logo
