Thanks! On 21 Apr 2010, at 5:12 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> This is part of the delegation flows so username should be just fine… > > EHL > > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eve > Maler > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 4:43 PM > To: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: 'username' parameter proposal > > Tacking this response to the end of the thread for lack of a better place to > do it: The name "username" seems not quite apt in the case of an autonomous > client that isn't representing an end-user. Would "identifier" be better? > (Actually, it sort of reminds me of SAML's "SessionIndex"...) Or would the > parameter be reserved for user-delegation flows? > > Speaking of autonomous clients, Section 2.2 -- among possibly other places -- > states that an autonomous client is also the resource owner, but that's not > always the case, is it? The client might be seeking access on behalf of > itself. (FWIW, I made roughly this same comment on David's first draft on > March 21, and he agreed with my suggested fix at the time.) > > Eve > Eve Maler e...@xmlgrrl.com http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
