Not that I will ever use this, but this is really broken way to create a protocol. Now is the time to make hard choices and pick one format.
EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Mike Jones > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:39 AM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08.txt WGLC > comments > > One possible syntax is: > > Bearer access_token=xyz_-123,more_info=pdq > > Ultimately though, the format of the bearer token is outside of the scope of > the spec, and up to the participants to determine, including whether to use > b64token syntax or params syntax. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de] > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:35 AM > To: Mike Jones > Cc: Manger, James H; oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08.txt WGLC > comments > > On 2011-10-12 20:26, Mike Jones wrote: > > Because b64token is existing practice > > ... > > <include-disclaimer-about-maturity-of-internet-drafts/> > > Anyway, how do you then send credentials that include the bearer token > plus additional parameters? Example, please. > > Best regards, Julian > > _______________________________________________ > 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
