> So is a different namespace for each new mechanism right, or should a > parameter be added to parallel the authorization scheme name? Seems like it > would be clean to define oauth_scheme and use the same value as defined for > the auth scheme name.
I'd much rather do it this way. There is value in reusing parameter names (at least for my client implementation anyways), as long as the scheme can be trivially determined. _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
