I think that William Mills already gave the best answer to the extensibility
question when he wrote:
"I think removing the auth-param usage is workable. Then if we need
extensibility defining a new scheme can do that. It's a bit more work that way
if needed, but it's clean."
Best wishes,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 11:14 AM
To: Bob Van Zant
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-09: Open Issues & Proposed
Resolutions
Hi Bob,
the question is only how to provide extensibility then. You are then
essentially forced to know, because of pre-arrangements, what the content of
the blob is going to be.
Is that also fine for you?
On Oct 14, 2011, at 7:04 PM, Bob Van Zant wrote:
> I'm in favor of removing the auth param option. It seems that half the
> point of the Bearer token is to have a very simple way of passing
> around opaque tokens.
>
> If there are reasons for building a more feature-ful token with cool
> parameters then let's bring about a new token type. For now I like the
> brain dead simple Bearer:
>
> credentials = "Bearer" 1*SP b64token
>
> -Bob
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
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
