I personally think the error code registry is a good idea, and the resourse parameter registry is a very very bad idea. I also didn't see anything approaching consensus on these changes in the wg, but heres my vote.
- justin ________________________________________ From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran Hammer-Lahav [e...@hueniverse.com] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:13 PM To: Mike Jones; Hannes Tschofenig; Blaine Cook Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth bearer token draft ready for working group last call I am opposed to all the new registration changes and requirements which have any impact on draft-ietf-oauth-v2. This request seems a bit odd given my feedback (which you have, again, ignored). EHL From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jones Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:51 PM To: Hannes Tschofenig; Blaine Cook Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth bearer token draft ready for working group last call As editor, having received no comments on the normative content of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-03, and having made no breaking changes since draft -01, other than one change voted upon by the working group, I believe that draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-03 is ready for working group last call. I’ll note that this draft requires editorial updates to the IANA Considerations section framework specification to register its errors. This should happen in draft -14 at the same time that the security considerations are added. At that point, hopefully we can go to working group last call on the framework specification as well. -- Mike _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
