___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
https://adguard.com/de/versions/android/release.html?utm_source=android_medium=activity_about_campaign=versionhistory
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
To be honest I’m somewhat taken aback by this reaction. The request was for
time to discuss an alternative PoP mechanism face-to-face. This is a topic
which has come up in the context of other work (e.g., DPoP) at several recent
IETF meetings, including the last one in Singapore. While I
Hi Annabelle,
Sure TLS is not th one size fits all but if you swap out Client Y signs /
authenticates message A to recipient X by: Client Y uses TLS for
authentication of the source (itself), integrity of data / communications and
even confidentiality (not really needed in our HTTP
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
Never mind, I just saw the answer.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Schaad
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 10:57 AM
To: 'draft-ietf-oauth-proof-of-possess...@ietf.org'
Cc: 'oauth'
Subject: Question for encrypted POP Key
I am trying to deal with some of the various confirmation methods for
I am trying to deal with some of the various confirmation methods for a POP
token. The question that I have is about the format of the JOSE Encrypted
value to be used. The document has an example of a compact serialization
for this concept, it does not have an example of a JSON serialization.
Hi,
Sorry for me answering in this direct manner instead of via the OAUTH mailing
list or so.
I would like to point a practical issue out wrt the HTTP signature spec. I have
got practical experience with the spec through my work for ING in our PSD2
(European electronic banking scheme)
As many of you know, Annabelle and I have put forward a general-purpose HTTP
Signing specification in the HTTP Working Group, at least initially based on
the old Cavage signatures spec that’s been used in the wild. We expect a number
of important changes to happen as it goes through the
I would like to discuss the Browser app BCP as well as the new draft which
got bumped from the agenda in Singapore:
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-parecki-oauth-client-intermediary-metadata
Aaron Parecki
aaronparecki.com
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:34 AM Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
wrote:
> All,
Hi Rifaat,
I would like to present draft-ietf-oauth-par, draft-lodderstedt-oauth-rar, and
draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-introspection-response (if we did not manage to move it
forward by then).
best regards,
Torsten.
> On 20. Jan 2020, at 16:32, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Please, let
Hi!
I would like to discuss DPoP, the Security BCP, and give a brief update
about the activities at the FAPI working group.
-Daniel
Am 20.01.20 um 16:32 schrieb Rifaat Shekh-Yusef:
> All,
>
> Please, let us know if you have any topics that you would like to
> present and discuss in Vancouver.
>
All,
Please, let us know if you have any topics that you would like to present
and discuss in Vancouver.
Regards,
Rifaat & Hannes
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
13 matches
Mail list logo
