Authors,
As part of the shepherd write-up, all authors of OAuth 2.0 Step-up
Authentication Challenge Protocol
must confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full
conformance with the provisions
of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iet
I am not aware of any IPR associated with this document.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 6:11 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
wrote:
> Authors,
>
> As part of the shepherd write-up, all authors of OAuth 2.0 Step-up
> Authentication Challenge Protocol
> must confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures req
All,
As part of the shepherd write-up for the OAuth 2.0 Step-up Authentication
Challenge Protocol document,
we are looking for information about implementations of this draft.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-oauth-step-up-authn-challenge-08.html
Please, reply to this email, on the mai
Ping Identity has implementations of the functionality in this document for
the authorization server and resource server roles.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 6:16 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
wrote:
> All,
>
> As part of the shepherd write-up for the OAuth 2.0 Step-up Authentication
> Challenge Protocol docu
Thanks Brian!
Any links to public documents that cover this that you could share?
Thanks,
Rifaat
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:39 AM Brian Campbell
wrote:
> Ping Identity has implementations of the functionality in this document
> for the authorization server and resource server roles.
>
> On Tu
It's just an aspect of generally flexible/configurable products so there
aren't documents that specifically call out support. That I'm aware of
anyway. I'm admittedly not terribly familiar with our documentation. But I
found a couple things. LIke this
https://docs.pingidentity.com/r/en-us/pingacces
Thanks, Brian!
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 3:52 PM Brian Campbell
wrote:
> It's just an aspect of generally flexible/configurable products so there
> aren't documents that specifically call out support. That I'm aware of
> anyway. I'm admittedly not terribly familiar with our documentation. But I
>
DPoP Authors:
I just noticed that the DPoP-Nonce header is not registered in the current
version of the DPoP spec. This should be added under section 12.8, HTTP Message
Header Field Names Registration. It’s a clerical oversight but needs to be
fixed before the document is finalized.
— Justin
Thanks Justin,
It'll be fixed in the next draft revision. I happened to notice the
oversight as well when working on the AD review and have already added it
in the document source in github.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 3:44 PM Justin Richer wrote:
> DPoP Authors:
>
> I just noticed that the DPoP-No
