Am 13.10.22 um 14:24 schrieb Hollenbeck, Scott
For the token revocation RFC 7009 can be used as-is, all we'd need to
specify would be the path segment like farv1_token_revocation and add
signalling if the RDAP server supports it or not in the /help
response.
[SAH] 7009 describes the interaction
> -Original Message-
> From: Pawel Kowalik
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 3:35 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-17 -
> Clients
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside
Am 12.10.22 um 19:07 schrieb Hollenbeck, Scott:
For the token revocation RFC 7009 can be used as-is, all we'd need to
specify
would be the path segment like farv1_token_revocation and add signalling if
the RDAP server supports it or not in the /help response.
[SAH] 7009 describes the interacti
> -Original Message-
> From: Pawel Kowalik
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 12:36 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-17 -
> Clients
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside
Am 12.10.22 um 14:56 schrieb Hollenbeck, Scott:
[SAH] Since the draft already includes text that describes support for two
different types of clients, I'm OK with the idea of adding (or re-adding) text
that describes support for web service clients, too. The challenge is in
deciding how to supp
> -Original Message-
> From: regext On Behalf Of Pawel Kowalik
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 11:42 AM
> To: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-openid-17 -
> Clients
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside
Hi Pavel,
please find me comments below.
Il 11/10/2022 17:42, Pawel Kowalik ha scritto:
Hi Mario,
Am 11.10.22 um 16:38 schrieb Mario Loffredo:
Il 11/10/2022 15:04, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 8:16 AM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
my humble opinion is that this document should
Hi Mario,
Am 11.10.22 um 16:38 schrieb Mario Loffredo:
Il 11/10/2022 15:04, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 8:16 AM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
my humble opinion is that this document shouldn't deal with any kind
of RDAP client other than a browser.
Looking at the chapter 1 of
Il 11/10/2022 15:04, Andrew Newton ha scritto:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 8:16 AM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
my humble opinion is that this document shouldn't deal with any kind of RDAP
client other than a browser.
At the moment, I disagree with this. Authentication for non-browser
clients can be ve
> Le 11 oct. 2022 à 09:04, Andrew Newton a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 8:16 AM Mario Loffredo
> wrote:
>>
>> my humble opinion is that this document shouldn't deal with any kind of RDAP
>> client other than a browser.
>
> At the moment, I disagree with this. Authentication for non-b
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 8:16 AM Mario Loffredo
wrote:
>
> my humble opinion is that this document shouldn't deal with any kind of RDAP
> client other than a browser.
At the moment, I disagree with this. Authentication for non-browser
clients can be very useful. GitHub's client is a great example
Hi Scott, Pavel and everyone else,
my humble opinion is that this document shouldn't deal with any kind of
RDAP client other than a browser.
One reason is for consistency with the choice of omitting the automatic
clients which will likely be significantly more than the clients based
on a web
12 matches
Mail list logo
