Unless there are objections from the WG, I'd like to publish -04 today
with two smallish changes (new text listed below) to address the
question raised yesterday in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09381.html and
have -04 be the draft for LC.
First paragraph of §3:
"If a registrant wishes to have a OAuth URI registered, then a URN of
the form urn:ietf:params:oauth:<value> will be requested where
<value> is a suitable representation of the functionality or concept
being registered."
Index value bullet of §5.1
"Index value: values subordinate to urn:ietf:params:oauth are of
the from urn:ietf:params:oauth:<value> with <value> as the index
value. It is suggested that <value> include both a "class" and an
"identifier-within-class" component, with the two components being
separated by a colon (":"); other compositions of the <value> may
also be used.
Thanks,
Brian
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> I'll wait until the chairs tell me what you want
> but I'm fine with doing the IETF LC on -03 now, or
> with waiting if the chairs reckon that's better.
> So just let me know.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
