I can't comment with any authority on product road-map (that's above my pay-grade) but I can speculate that we probably would support "S256" eventually.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig < hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote: > Thanks Brian for pointing me to Section 4.4.1 and to the MTI for "S256". > While this is good from a security point of view I am wondering whether > anyone is actually compliant to the specification. Neither PingIdentity > nor DT implements the S256 transform, if I understood that correctly. > Are you guys going planning to update your implementations? > > Ciao > Hannes > > On 02/18/2015 05:45 PM, Brian Campbell wrote: > > There's a bit of MTI talk tucked into > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-10#section-4.4.1 that > > perhaps needs to be expanded and/or placed somewhere else. > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig > > <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the info, Torsten. > > > > Your feedback raises an interesting question, namely what > functionality > > the parties have to implement to claim conformance to the > specification. > > > > Quickly scanning through the specification didn't tell me whether it > is > > OK to just implement the plain mode or whether both modes are > > mandatory-to-implement. We have to say something about this. > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > > > On 02/18/2015 02:16 PM, tors...@lodderstedt.net > > <mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net> wrote: > > > Hi Hannes, > > > > > > our implementation supports the "plain" mode only. We just verified > > > compliance of our implementation with the current spec. As the only > > > deviation, we do not enforce the minimum length of 43 characters > > of the > > > code verifier. > > > > > > kind regards, > > > Torsten. > > > > > > Am 17.02.2015 17:48, schrieb Hannes Tschofenig: > > >> Hi Torsten, > > >> > > >> does this mean that your implementation is not compliant with the > > >> current version anymore or that you haven't had time to verify > > whether > > >> there are differences to the earlier version? > > >> > > >> Ciao > > >> Hannes > > >> > > >> > > >> On 01/31/2015 05:34 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote: > > >>> Deutsche Telekom also implemented an early version of the draft > last > > >>> year. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Am 30.01.2015 um 18:50 schrieb Brian Campbell > > >>> <bcampb...@pingidentity.com <mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com> > > <mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com > > <mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>>>: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Hannes Tschofenig > > >>>> <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> > > <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net > > <mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> 1) What implementations of the spec are you aware of? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> We have an AS side implementation of an earlier draft that was > > >>>> released in June of last year: > > >>>> > > > http://documentation.pingidentity.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=26706844 > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> OAuth mailing list > > >>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org > > <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>> > > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
