Re: [OAUTH-WG] Registration: Internationalization of Human-Readable names

n RFC 6365. Regards, -sm ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

[OAUTH-WG] Mandatory to implement (was: oauth assertions plan)

. Barry Leiba explained what it meant. In my humble opinion a mandatory to implement feature is about having the code for the feature. If the code is out there it is easier to get what you want. Regards, -sm ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org

Re: [OAUTH-WG] On the OAuth Core Spec

Hi Derek, Hannes, Eran, Thanks, -sm ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [kitten] OAuth Discovery and what the relying partyneeds to know

Some people think of the other person in terms of "what's your [insert social network]?". There are several specifications which reference rfc822 identifiers. The interesting point in the above is what will be people's expected behavior while taking into account the

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Encoding of Errors in the Base and in the Bearer Spec

resolved by creating the design committee. Isn't it up the Document Shepherd to coordinate the resolution of DISCUSS or COMMENT items? Regards, -sm ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)

as picking one option. Regards, -sm ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification

discussion about "ambiguity" relies on the meaning of the word "OPTIONAL" only. If there is a problem, then clarifying text could be used to fix it instead of changing the requirements. Regards, -sm ___ OAuth mailing list

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification

are: (i) Asking for a clarification in a specification; or (ii) Trying to resolve a disagreement with a vendor. Regards, -sm ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Re: [OAUTH-WG] OMA Liaison Has Arrived! [ was Re: Deutsche Telekom launched OAuth 2.0 support]

Alliance in May 2010 (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg07457.html ). Regards, -sm ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft iteration frequency

u outlined above. I suggest that you use your best judgement to determine when the changes are significant enough to submit a new revision of the I-D. If you look at an I-D as a specification which will be implemented, it would be better to avoid frequent iterations. Re

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Process / timeline for OAuth 2.0

p to you to determine whether you want to implement what the RFC says and how you are going to do that. It is better, for interoperability, if an implementation that claims conformance to a RFC adheres to it. Regards, -sm ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth