On Oct 12, 2011, at 7:37 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote: > While I much prefer what you suggest below (and it was suggested > before), I think it is too late for that. It will force existing > deployments to implement ambiguous parsing code. > > Let's stick with "Bearer <b64token>". If this is the only option, do > we have to limit the token chars to b64?
> > If more flexibility is needed then we can define a new scheme for that. > I agree. The use of "Bearer" is enough to allow for future extension if needed, by using one of the many other character sequences allowed for the scheme. -DW
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
