I don't have any aversion to adding something but I've been at a bit of a
loss as to what exactly to say or how to say it. But here's a stab at
something. How about the following sentence, which kind of layers your
words onto the text that Barry previously suggested:
"It SHOULD NOT include a
I don't have a strong objection to it. I still think that, if this is
allowed (even as a SHOULD NOT), we need clarity that any query
parameters that are used to scope queries to an application necessarily
form part of the resource parameter. It's significantly less important,
though, now that
I went ahead with this in -07.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:07 PM Brian Campbell
wrote:
> 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
> 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
Thanks Adam, for the review and No Objection ballot.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:07 AM Adam Roach via Datatracker
wrote:
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: No Objection
>
>
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-oauth-resource-indicators-05: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
