Also look for the thread with subject "OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token specification draft -01".
Marius On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Jitesh Bhate <jbh...@exacttarget.com> wrote: > Thanks for your Response > I think I got one thread in archive > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg04673.html > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marius Scurtescu [mailto:mscurte...@google.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:55 PM > To: Jitesh Bhate > Cc: OAuth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 does not require parameter name > oauth_token= while passing in authorization header > > I tend to agree. > > Check the archives, there are recent discussions on this subject. The > exact format of the Authorization header is still debated, including > the scheme. > > Marius > > > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Jitesh Bhate <jbh...@exacttarget.com> wrote: >> While Integrating our Apis WITH CoTweet library >> >> We found that OAuth 2.0 has changed (from oauth 1.0) the way Oauth token is >> passed in authorization header. >> >> >> >> OAuth 2.0 does not >> >> require the oauth_token= while passing in authorization header >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-10#section-5.1.1 >> >> >> >> >> >> shouldn't following request 1) is more easy to parse as key value pairs than >> 2) ??? >> >> >> >> 1) >> >> GET /resource HTTP/1.1 >> >> Host: server.example.com >> >> Authorization: OAuth oauth_token=vF9dft4qmT >> >> >> >> 2) >> >> GET /resource HTTP/1.1 >> >> Host: server.example.com >> >> Authorization: OAuth vF9dft4qmT >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
