Do you want to see no change or adjust it to client must implement both, server decides which to use.
EHL ________________________________ From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Bradley [ve7...@ve7jtb.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 1:06 PM To: Torsten Lodderstedt Cc: oauth@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD review of -22 +1 On 2011-11-02, at 4:45 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt wrote: Hi Stephen, I'm concerned about your proposal (7) to make support for MAC a MUST for clients and BEARER a MAY only. In my opinion, this does not reflect the group's consensus. Beside this, the security threat analysis justifies usage of BEARER for nearly all use cases as long as HTTPS (incl. server authentication) can be utilized. regards, Torsten. Am 13.10.2011 19:13, schrieb Stephen Farrell: Hi all, Sorry for having been quite slow with this, but I had a bunch of travel recently. Anyway, my AD comments on -22 are attached. I think that the first list has the ones that need some change before we push this out for IETF LC, there might or might not be something to change as a result of the 2nd list of questions and the rest are really nits can be handled either now or later. Thanks for all your work on this so far - its nearly there IMO and we should be able to get the IETF LC started once these few things are dealt with. Cheers, S. _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
