Pronounce jwt as tho it were a Welsh word. It comes out close. More like
joot
thx ..Tom (mobile)
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024, 6:53 PM RFC Errata System
wrote:
> The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7519,
> "JSON Web Token (JWT)".
>
> --
> You may
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7519,
"JSON Web Token (JWT)".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5648
--
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Andy
___
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
You may be right. I no longer have the setup for this at hand but I believe
it depended on relaxing the domain settings through the now deprecated (and
in some browsers already removed or otherwise void) document.domain
property.
If the flow is unrecoverable it makes no sense to spend effort on
That's an interesting use-case for relay mode and might be a reason to
cover it.
However, we believe the current code for the relay mode in
draft-sakimura-oauth-wmrm-01 does not work. The same-origin policy
should prevent this line from working:
messageTargetWindowReference =
Hello Filip,
my bad, you are right. "Compatible" was the wrong word to use.
Yes, a client implementing draft-sakimura-oauth-wmrm-01 would expect a
different message structure than defined in our draft.
We are not fixed to the message structure in our current draft and are
open to discuss
