[OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-22 Section 8.4 Typo

2011-09-26 Thread André DeMarre
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-22 section 8.4 says: "If a response type contains one of more space characters". I'm pretty sure that should be "one or more". Regards, Andre DeMarre ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26

2011-09-26 Thread Manger, James H
> While you take the viewpoint that the bearer spec is restricting scope > values, in fact, > the spec intentionally allows all characters that can be safely communicated > in an HTTP > response header parameter to be used. But "all characters that can be safely communicated in an HTTP response

Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08 HTTP syntax comments

2011-09-26 Thread Julian Reschke
On 2011-09-26 22:10, Mike Jones wrote: Getting rid of the b64token would be an unnecessary breaking change. ... You're at draft state, right? If you want to keep b64token *and* be able to use params, then you'll need an alternate syntax that puts the token into param (which, arguably, would

Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08 HTTP syntax comments

2011-09-26 Thread Mike Jones
Getting rid of the b64token would be an unnecessary breaking change. -Original Message- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 12:27 PM To: William Mills Cc: Mike Jones; oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08 HTTP

Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08 HTTP syntax comments

2011-09-26 Thread Julian Reschke
On 2011-09-26 21:20, William Mills wrote: I'm gonna top reply... >> Is that intended and acceptable? No, b64token isn’t always there; the syntax specifies that either a b64token OR one or more auth-params will be present. Yes, that’s intended. If the token can be transported in auth-params

Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08 HTTP syntax comments

2011-09-26 Thread Julian Reschke
On 2011-09-26 21:03, Mike Jones wrote: ... No, b64token isn’t always there; the syntax specifies that either a b64token OR one or more auth-params will be present. Yes, that’s intended. OK then; just checking :-) > ... This was the working group decision at the interim meeting and is used in

Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08 HTTP syntax comments

2011-09-26 Thread William Mills
I'm gonna top reply... >> Is that intended and acceptable? > > No, b64token isn’t always there; the syntax specifies that either a b64token OR one or more auth-params will be present.  Yes, that’s intended. If the token can be transported in auth-params then I think you must define how that

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26

2011-09-26 Thread Mike Jones
While you take the viewpoint that the bearer spec is restricting scope values, in fact, the spec intentionally allows all characters that can be safely communicated in an HTTP response header parameter to be used. About whether those characters employ an encoding methodology to sometimes repres

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26

2011-09-26 Thread Mike Jones
Sounds good to me. Are others good with this wording? -- Mike -Original Message- From: barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com [mailto:barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 6:33 AM To: Mike Jones Cc: oa

Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08 HTTP syntax comments

2011-09-26 Thread Mike Jones
Thanks for your note, Julian. Responses follow inline... -- Mike -Original Message- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de] Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 5:07 AM To: Mike Jones Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: R

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Chairing change

2011-09-26 Thread Leif Johansson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > I'm sure you'll all join me in thanking Blaine for all his > excellent work in bringing oauth into and getting it (almost) > through the IETF process. Thanks Blaine! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using G