Re: [OAUTH-WG] Shepherd Writeup for draft-ietf-oauth-spop-06.txt

[Nat Sakimura <[e-mail]>]

Finally, we added PKCE S256 support on our implementation.

Best,

Nat
2015年2月20日(金)、7:28 Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>:

> I can't comment with any authority on product road-map (that's above my
> pay-grade) but I can speculate that we probably would support "S256"
> eventually.
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Brian for pointing me to Section 4.4.1 and to the MTI for "S256".
>> While this is good from a security point of view I am wondering whether
>> anyone is actually compliant to the specification. Neither PingIdentity
>> nor DT implements the S256 transform, if I understood that correctly.
>> Are you guys going planning to update your implementations?
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> On 02/18/2015 05:45 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
>> > There's a bit of MTI talk tucked into
>> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-10#section-4.4.1 that
>> > perhaps needs to be expanded and/or placed somewhere else.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
>> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     Thanks for the info, Torsten.
>> >
>> >     Your feedback raises an interesting question, namely what
>> functionality
>> >     the parties have to implement to claim conformance to the
>> specification.
>> >
>> >     Quickly scanning through the specification didn't tell me whether
>> it is
>> >     OK to just implement the plain mode or whether both modes are
>> >     mandatory-to-implement. We have to say something about this.
>> >
>> >     Ciao
>> >     Hannes
>> >
>> >
>> >     On 02/18/2015 02:16 PM, [e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >     > Hi Hannes,
>> >     >
>> >     > our implementation supports the "plain" mode only. We just
>> verified
>> >     > compliance of our implementation with the current spec. As the
>> only
>> >     > deviation, we do not enforce the minimum length of 43 characters
>> >     of the
>> >     > code verifier.
>> >     >
>> >     > kind regards,
>> >     > Torsten.
>> >     >
>> >     > Am 17.02.2015 17:48, schrieb Hannes Tschofenig:
>> >     >> Hi Torsten,
>> >     >>
>> >     >> does this mean that your implementation is not compliant with the
>> >     >> current version anymore or that you haven't had time to verify
>> >     whether
>> >     >> there are differences to the earlier version?
>> >     >>
>> >     >> Ciao
>> >     >> Hannes
>> >     >>
>> >     >>
>> >     >> On 01/31/2015 05:34 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote:
>> >     >>> Deutsche Telekom also implemented an early version of the draft
>> last
>> >     >>> year.
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>> Am 30.01.2015 um 18:50 schrieb Brian Campbell
>> >     >>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>:
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>>
>> >     >>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
>> >     >>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>> >     >>>>
>> >     >>>>
>> >     >>>>     1) What implementations of the spec are you aware of?
>> >     >>>>
>> >     >>>>
>> >     >>>> We have an AS side implementation of an earlier draft that was
>> >     >>>> released in June of last year:
>> >     >>>>
>> >
>> http://documentation.pingidentity.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=26706844
>> >     >>>>
>> >     >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >     >>>> OAuth mailing list
>> >     >>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> >     >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>