Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Token Exchange's act and may_act claims also registered for Introspection Endpoint responses?

From: Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:46:45 -0600

The question of if the act and may_act claims defined in Token Exchange
should also be registered/defined for Introspection Endpoint responses was
raised on this list a while back. Not much was said about it at the time
but I did put an issue in github to keep track of it. I'd like to close out
that issue and I believe that it does make sense to also register those two
claims as Introspection Response members.

Do any WG members have strong feelings one way or the other about that? In
the absence of strong objections, I plan to make the change in the next
revision.

---

From: Justin Richer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:14:13 -0400

Makes sense to me.

 — Justin

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Brian Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The question of if the act and may_act claims defined in Token Exchange should also be registered/defined for Introspection Endpoint responses was raised on this list a while back. Not much was said about it at the time but I did put an issue in github to keep track of it. I'd like to close out that issue and I believe that it does make sense to also register those two claims as Introspection Response members. 
> 
> Do any WG members have strong feelings one way or the other about that? In the absence of strong objections, I plan to make the change in the next revision. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth