One of the goals on the JWK side was to be able to simplify it. I support the change.
John B. On 2013-02-26, at 7:05 AM, Justin Richer <[email protected]> wrote: > Right now, the Dynamic Registration draft has four URLs that deal with > registering public keys for the client: > > jwk_uri > jwk_encryption_uri > x509_uri > x509_encryption_uri > > These are for use in things like JWK-based assertions for client > authentication and signing/encryption with higher-level protocols. > > Recent and impending changes in the JWK specification allow it to specify > what a given key can be used for, and provide different formats for the keys > including an x509 encoded certificate. These changes seem to get rid of the > need for specifying for separate URLs for each format and function in > registration. > > It's been proposed, from the OIDC working group, to collapse all of these > into a single, new parameter: > > jwks_uri > > Which would point specifically to a "JWK Set" as defined in the JWK draft. > > I'm in favor of this simplifying change, and OIDC has already adopted it on > their end. Thoughts? > > -- Justin > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
