That matches my understanding as well. --David
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>wrote: > General discussions on the list and during the interim meeting. > > EHL > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net] > > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:20 PM > > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > > Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints > > > > What consensus do you refer to? The WG charter? > > > > regards, > > Torsten. > > > > Am 02.08.2010 22:18, schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav: > > > No according to WG consensus. We took it all out because too many > people > > considered it experimental, so while it may be a WG item, it is not part > of the > > core spes. > > > > > > EHL > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Torsten Lodderstedt [mailto:tors...@lodderstedt.net] > > >> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:07 PM > > >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav > > >> Cc: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > > >> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints > > >> > > >> and discovery does not belong into the core? > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> Torsten. > > >> > > >> Am 02.08.2010 22:05, schrieb Eran Hammer-Lahav: > > >> > > >>> This doesn't belong in core. A registry is used to avoid name > > >>> collisions, not > > >>> > > >> to provide an inventory. > > >> > > >>> Maybe in discovery. > > >>> > > >>> EHL > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On > > >>>> Behalf Of Torsten Lodderstedt > > >>>> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 12:54 PM > > >>>> To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > > >>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Extensibility: new endpoints > > >>>> > > >>>> the existing authorization server endpoints (end-user authorization > > >>>> and tokens endpoint) have a relatively clearly semantics and scope. > > >>>> Adding distinct new functions to an authorization server will (in > > >>>> my > > >>>> opionion) require the definition of new endpoints. For example, I'm > > >>>> working on an I-D for token revocation. Such a function does not > > >>>> fit into the tokens endpoint since it has become a "token issuance > > >>>> endpoint" rather than a general purpose client2server endpoint. > > >>>> > > >>>> I therefore would propose to include the option to define and > > >>>> register new endpoints into the Extensibility section of the spec. > > >>>> This would also facilitate the incorporation of additional > > >>>> endpoints (with well-defined names) into OAuth discovery. > > >>>> > > >>>> Any thoughts? > > >>>> > > >>>> regards, > > >>>> Torsten. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> OAuth mailing list > > >>>> OAuth@ietf.org > > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
