#2
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike
Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:17 PM
To: Manger, James H; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token scheme name - new vote deadline Sat, 2/12
Yes, but it also had other options that were "none of the above" relative to
this naming issue. I'd like to obtain an unambiguous outcome on this point by
having people vote between two choices.
I personally agree with those that made the case that it is presumptive to
claim the generic name "Bearer". Hence, I will personal vote for #1.
-- Mike
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Manger, James H
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token scheme name - new vote deadline Sat, 2/12
The previous poll already had these two options, with the non-OAuth-specific
name getting 14 votes to 1 vote for an OAuth prefix.
1. Descriptive, non-OAuth-specific scheme names (Bearer, MAC)
...
3. Name prefix (e.g. oauth2_bearer)
I vote for 2 "Bearer".
--
James Manger
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike
Jones
Sent: Wednesday, 9 February 2011 10:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token scheme name - new vote deadline Sat, 2/12
Given that people are clearly voting to change the bearer token scheme name,
but that there is also significant discussion asking for "OAuth2" to be part of
the name, I'd like to settle the matter by vote on the list. Please vote for
one of the following names:
1. OAuth2Bearer
2. Bearer
Thanks,
-- Mike
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
