> Because 2.0 deployments are not likely > to share the same credentials
Ok I understand, so that's "the value of which is the.." piece. I'm not clear we can say one way or another which credentials are supplied, but if that's the assumption/desire, then perhaps the ID should document it. In any case, I believe references to the 1.0 protocol should refer to the RFC. Bill On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 11:12 -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > Because 2.0 deployments are not likely to share the same credentials > with 1.0, or at least it is not something I would like to suggest. > This is a new protocol. > > EHL > > > On 8/31/10 3:12 AM, "b...@dehora.net" <b...@dehora.net> wrote: > > Why not? > > Bill > > On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 10:10 -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > > It does not need to have any normative references to 5849. > > > > EHL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Bill de hÓra > > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 5:47 AM > > To: David Recordon > > Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); OAuth WG > > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Token Upgrade Extension > > > > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 20:26 +0000, 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 > > > > > > > replace > > > > [[[ > > client_id > > REQUIRED. The client identifier as described in > Section 2 of > > [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2]. > > > > client_secret > > REQUIRED. The client secret as described in Section 2 > of > > [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2]. > > ]]] > > > > with > > > > {{{ > > client_id > > REQUIRED. The client identifier as described in > Section 2 of > > [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2], the value of which is the > oauth_consumer_key > > as described in [@@@rfc5849] > > > > client_secret > > REQUIRED. The client secret as described in Section 2 > of > > [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2],the value of which is the > shared-secret > > as described in "3.4 Signature" of [@@@rfc5849] }}} > > > > The draft needs to reference rfc5849 rather than OAuth 1.0. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OAuth mailing list > > OAuth@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
