Archive

I prefer “code_challenge_methods_supported”, since the registered parameter name is “code_challenge_method”, not “pkce_method".

> On Jan 19, 2016, at 11:58, William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Seems like we agree this should be added. How should it look?
> 
> Two ideas:
> 
> "code_challenge_methods_supported": ["plain", "S256"]
> 
> or
> 
> "pkce_methods_supported": ["plain", "S256"]
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net <mailto:torsten@lodderstedt.net>> wrote:
> +1
> 
> 
> Am 06.01.2016 um 18:25 schrieb William Denniss:
>> +1
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:40 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
>> Good point.  Now that PKCE is a RFC we should add it to discovery.
>> 
>> John B.
>> > On Jan 6, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Vladimir Dzhuvinov <vladimir@connect2id.com <mailto:vladimir@connect2id.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I just noticed PKCE support is missing from the discovery metadata.
>> >
>> > Is it a good idea to add it?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Vladimir
>> >
>> > --
>> > Vladimir Dzhuvinov
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OAuth mailing list
>> > OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Advertise PKCE support in OAuth 2.0 Discovery (draft-jones-oauth-discovery-00)