Thanks Barry, I kinda like it. Although I'm a bit hesitant to make a change like that at this stage. I guess I'd be looking for a little more buy-in from folks first. Though it's not actually a functional breaking change. So maybe okay to just go with.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:54 PM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: > > Yeah, with query parameters lacking the hierarchical semantics that the > path component has, it is much less clear. In fact, an earlier revision of > the draft forbid the query part as I was trying to avoid the ambiguity that > it brings. But there were enough folks with some use case for it that it > made its way back in. While I am sympathetic to the point you're making > here, I'd prefer to not codify the practice any further by way of example > in the document. > > Is it perhaps reasonable to discourage the use of a query component > while still allowing it? Maybe a "SHOULD NOT", such as this?: > > OLD > Its value MUST be an absolute URI, as specified by > Section 4.3 of [RFC3986], which MAY include a query component but > MUST NOT include a fragment component. > NEW > Its value MUST be an absolute URI, as specified by > Section 4.3 of [RFC3986]. The URI MUST NOT include > a fragment component. It SHOULD NOT include a query > component, but it is recognized that there are cases that > make a query component useful. > END > > What do you think? > > Barry > -- _CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Thank you._
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
