Skip to content

Conversation

@tplooker
Copy link
Contributor

Resolves #394

@tplooker tplooker force-pushed the tl/c-nonce-expires-removal branch from 8b33213 to ea153bc Compare November 28, 2024 23:11
@tplooker tplooker requested review from Sakurann, babisRoutis, bc-pi, jogu and peppelinux and removed request for bc-pi November 28, 2024 23:11
@tplooker
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks all, I have updated the PR to remove this sentence, I also added one sentence to the c_nonce definition to make it clear the expectations around its unpredictability and uniqueness across responses from the nonce endpoint.

Copy link
Member

@bc-pi bc-pi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The statement that this "value MUST be unpredictable" is a bit odd to me but who am I to judge?

@tlodderstedt tlodderstedt merged commit a1a3db9 into main Dec 3, 2024
2 checks passed
@Sakurann Sakurann added this to the Final 1.0 milestone Sep 15, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider removing the c_nonce_expires_in parameter