+1 Sent from my iPhone
On 21 maj 2013, at 00:21, "nov matake" <mat...@gmail.com<mailto:mat...@gmail.com>> wrote: +1 On 2013/05/21, at 5:23, Edmund Jay <e...@mgi1.com<mailto:e...@mgi1.com>> wrote: +1 for keeping names as is. ________________________________ From: Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org<mailto:jric...@mitre.org>> To: "oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>" <oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>> Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 8:10:13 AM Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration Phil Hunt's review of the Dynamic Registration specification has raised a couple of issues that I felt were getting buried by the larger discussion (which I still strongly encourage others to jump in to). Namely, Phil has suggested a couple of syntax changes to the names of several parameters. 1) expires_at -> client_secret_expires_at 2) issued_at -> client_id_issued_at 3) token_endpoint_auth_method -> token_endpoint_client_auth_method I'd like to get a feeling, especially from developers who have deployed this draft spec, what we ought to do for each of these: A) Keep the parameter names as-is B) Adopt the new names as above C) Adopt a new name that I will specify In all cases, clarifying text will be added to the parameter *definitions* so that it's more clear to people reading the spec what each piece does. Speaking as the editor: "A" is the default as far as I'm concerned, since we shouldn't change syntax without very good reason to do so. That said, if it's going to be better for developers with the new parameter names, I am open to fixing them now. Naming things is hard. -- Justin _______________________________________________ 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
