I'm more in favor of this alternative: [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg02300.html
But I can see use cases for both: they basically look at the same problem from both sides. If Marius would like to bring his draft up to current spec, I would support its inclusion as a WG item along side of David's. -- Justin On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 16:26 -0400, David Recordon wrote: > This draft is now an Internet Draft and I'm curious if anyone has any > feedback on > it? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-recordon-oauth-v2-upgrade-00 > > > I'd also like to request that this draft moves to become a Working > Group item. I'm am happy to act as the editor unless someone else > wishes to do so moving forward. > > > Thanks, > --David > > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:39 PM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> > wrote: > The ability to upgrade OAuth 1.0 tokens and secrets to OAuth > 2.0 access tokens has come up on the list a few times. > Attached is a draft assertion format which allows a client to > trade an OAuth 1.0 token/secret pair for an OAuth 2.0 access > token. The assertion format is a JSON object with values for > the token and token secret. My goal is that this draft become > a working group document. > > > A question for the group is if upgrading multiple tokens at > once is a necessary use case? The assertion format within the > core spec only supports issuing a single access token. > Facebook has a custom endpoint which allows upgrading multiple > tokens at once, but I don't actually have data about how many > developers make use of that functionality. > > > Thanks, > --David > > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
