I also support option #1
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian
Campbell
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:29 PM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Specification organization (Endpoints vs. Flows) - Vote
by 1/17
I guess I'm in the minority but I p
__
>> From: Marius Scurtescu [mscurte...@google.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:10 AM
>> To: Richer, Justin P.
>> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Specification organization (Endpoints vs. Flows) -
>> Vote by 1/17
P.
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Specification organization (Endpoints vs. Flows) - Vote
by 1/17
+1 for option 2 as well
Not convinced that naming the main flows Authenticated and
Unauthenticated makes sense, I think it will only increase confusion.
For example, native
+1 for option 2.
Implementing and testing against draft 5 was wonderful.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> (Vote at the end, please read)
>
>
>
> Background
>
>
>
> Between draft -00 and -05 the document used a flow-based organization. This
> was changed to an endpoint
+1 for flow based option (#2) -- it prioritizes the security implications, and
then readability for a much larger audience (client developer)
On 2011-01-11, at 11:19 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> (Vote at the end, please read)
>
> Background
>
> Between draft -00 and -05 the document used a
rom: Marius Scurtescu [mscurte...@google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:10 AM
To: Richer, Justin P.
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Specification organization (Endpoints vs. Flows) - Vote
by 1/17
+1 for option 2 as well
Not convinced that naming th
work at all with their API/framework/server.
>
> -- Justin
>
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran
> Hammer-Lahav [e...@hueniverse.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:19 AM
> To: OAuth WG
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Specific
av [e...@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:19 AM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Specification organization (Endpoints vs. Flows) - Vote
by 1/17
(Vote at the end, please read)
Background
Between draft -00 and -05 the document used a flow-based organization. This was
changed to an end
+1 for option 2 - flow based organization
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran
Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:19 PM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Specification organization (Endpoints vs. Flows) - Vote by
1/17
(Vote at the end
I prefer #1.
EHL
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran
Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:19 PM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Specification organization (Endpoints vs. Flows) - Vote by
1/17
(Vote at the end, please read)
Background
(Vote at the end, please read)
Background
Between draft -00 and -05 the document used a flow-based organization. This was
changed to an endpoint-based organization in draft -06. I have received
requests to go back to the flow-based organization, and with -12, have been
planning to do that. It
11 matches
Mail list logo
