I didn't get to finish the editorial changes I want to make so I pushed the
incomplete but stable draft out as -11. This includes all the normative
language changes the group agreed on, as well as all the feedback I had for
-10. The remaining editorial work should not change any implementation d
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Open Authentication Protocol Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : The OAuth 2.0 Protocol Framework
Author(s) : E. Hammer-Lahav, et al.
Filename
4.3 would be the wrong behavior. I think it should just be an informative page
to let the end-user know something broke.
New text:
If the request fails due to a missing or invalid redirection URI, the
authorization
server SHOULD inform the end-user of the error, and MUST NOT
This is fixed (back) in -11.
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Kristoffer Gronowski
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:19 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Draf 10 OAuth chapter 2.1 question
>
> Hi!
>
> J
> -Original Message-
> From: Manger, James H [mailto:james.h.man...@team.telstra.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 3:52 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG
> Subject: RE: ABNF in draft 11
>
> This is better.
>
> is not quite correct as the right-hand side is not quite a subset
It's not that explicit. I'll fix it.
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: Subbu Allamaraju [mailto:su...@subbu.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:44 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: Anton Panasenko; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 server behavior
>
> Could you point
Nat Sakimura wrote:
I think such things are better dealt with extensions.
Sure. But first we need to define that which we will later extend.
I do not like to overload "scope".
Neither do I, as long as "overloading" means varying the original
semantics. But, again, at the moment we h
