Right, that was our take on it too… but does it have a formal name yet? Or just RFC5849 ?
On 8 June 2010 21:40, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > Right, that is http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5849 = OAuth 1.0a with some > corrections. > > On 6/8/10 1:37 PM, Lee Hambley wrote: > > sure, here http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-oauth-10 looks like > > it might be an rfc now > > > > On 8 June 2010 20:58, Shak <ssha...@gmail.com > > <mailto:ssha...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Apologies, could you explain or provide a resource that explains what > > DraftHammer is? > > > > On Jun 8, 4:15 pm, Lee Hambley <lee.hamb...@gmail.com > > <mailto:lee.hamb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > We opted to implement DraftHammer r10 - as it seemed to be a nice > > balance > > > between 1.0a and the changes coming in 2.0 - although the whole > > > state-of-the-spec thing is horrible! > > > > > > On 8 June 2010 14:12, Shak <ssha...@gmail.com > > <mailto:ssha...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > I'm about to start working on incorporating OAuth in a project > I'm > > > > working on. I'll be a resource server, and will therefore have to > > > > issue and manage tokens etc. > > > > > > > My question is regarding OAuth 2. Should I look to support the > new > > > > spec? I realise that it's a draft and in flux etc, but I'm > wondering > > > > with regards to this new project whether it's better to jump > > straight > > > > into 2 now, or use 1a with the intention of moving to 2 later on > - I > > > > understand that the two are not compatible, but is it possible > > to run > > > > both in parallel? Perhaps even by using the same tokens? > > > > > > > I know that this is a very subjective question to ask, but any > > > > thoughts or advice would be appreciated. > > > > > > > Shak > > > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google Groups > > > > "OAuth" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to oauth@googlegroups.com > > <mailto:oauth@googlegroups.com>. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<oauth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > <mailto:oauth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<oauth%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > <oauth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<oauth%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > <mailto:oauth%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<oauth%25252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >>. > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "OAuth" group. > > To post to this group, send email to oauth@googlegroups.com > > <mailto:oauth@googlegroups.com>. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<oauth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > <mailto:oauth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<oauth%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "OAuth" group. > > To post to this group, send email to oa...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<oauth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en. > > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OAuth" group. To post to this group, send email to oa...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en.
