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

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

Yes sorry.   code_challenge_method is the query parameter so code_challenge_methods_supported


> On Jan 25, 2016, at 6:12 PM, William Denniss <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:17 AM, John Bradley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> The code_challenge and code_challenge_method parameter names predate calling the spec PKCE.  
> 
> Given that some of us deployed early versions of PKCE in products and opensource to mitigate the problem before the spec was completed we decided not to rename the parameter names from code_verifier_method to pkce_verifier_method.  
> 
> For consistency we should stick with code_verifier_methods_supported in discovery.
> 
> To clarify, did you mean "code_challenge_methods_supported"?  That is, building on the param name "code_challenge_method" from Section 4.3 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7636#section-4.3>?
>  
> 
> John B.
> 
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:12 AM, William Denniss <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> "code_challenge_methods_supported" definitely works for me.
>> 
>> Any objections to moving forward with that? I would like to update our discovery doc shortly.
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nat Sakimura <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Ah, OK. That's actually reasonable. 
>> 
>> 2016年1月21日(木) 9:31 nov matake <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 06.01.2016 um 18:25 schrieb William Denniss:
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:40 AM, John Bradley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>>>> > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OAuth mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
> 
>