Re: [OAUTH-WG] JARM

I think that JARM is good and even feel that JARM should exist there from a
logical perspective because JARM is to Authorization Response what Request
Object is to Authorization Request. It is good that we don't have to use
"ID Token as Detached Signature" (Financial-grade API Part 2) when JARM is
used.

FWIW, I (Authlete) finished implementing JARM at the beginning of October,
2018, about a year and 3 months ago.

Best Regards,
Takahiko Kawasaki

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 5:22 AM Brian Campbell <bcampbell=
40pingidentity.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I'd be in favor of it.
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 9:28 AM Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten=
> 40lodderstedt.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 16.01.2020 um 16:48 schrieb Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>:
>>
>> Maybe PAR and JAR (and JARM?) end up going out as a bundle of specs.
>>
>>
>> Since Justin brought it up, I would like to know whether the community
>> has appetite to standardize JARM as well.
>>
>> Here is the link to the spec:
>> https://openid.net/specs/openid-financial-api-jarm-ID1.html
>>
>> What do you think?
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and
> privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any
> review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited..
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from
> your computer. Thank you.*_______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>