. My suggestion to make signing of
the subject_token optional still stands :-)
Kai
From: George Fletcher
Date: Friday, 3. May 2024 at 18:15
To: Kai Lehmann
Cc: Kai Lehmann , oauth
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [External Sender] Re: Transaction Tokens issuance in
the absence of incoming token
Hi Kai
an at least allow alternatives.
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Kai
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *George Fletcher
> *Date: *Friday, 12. April 2024 at 19:53
> *To: *Atul Tulshibagwale
> *Cc: *Brian Campbell , Kai Lehmann <
> kai.lehm...@1und1.de>, Dmitry Telegin , oauth &l
: oauth
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [External Sender] Re: Transaction Tokens issuance in
the absence of incoming token
Kai,
How would the TTS trust the incoming "subject" value if not signed? Do you have
something in mind?
Thanks,
George
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 3:46 AM Kai Lehmann
mail
gt; kai.lehm...@1und1.de>, Dmitry Telegin , oauth <
> oauth@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [External Sender] Re: [OAUTH-WG] Transaction Tokens
> issuance in the absence of incoming token
>
>
>
> Atul has submitted this PR to address this issue.
>
> htt
Sender] Re: [OAUTH-WG] Transaction Tokens issuance in
the absence of incoming token
Atul has submitted this PR to address this issue.
https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/90
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:10 PM Atul Tulshibagwale
mailto:a...@sgnl.ai>> wrote:
Thanks all, fo
Atul has submitted this PR to address this issue.
https://github.com/oauth-wg/oauth-transaction-tokens/pull/90
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:10 PM Atul Tulshibagwale wrote:
> Thanks all, for your input. We discussed alternatives on a call last week
>
