+1 On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 01:42, Filip Skokan <panva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe implementers should be free to devise their own URIs and not be > locked down to one by the spec, at the same time, and RFC6755 subnamespace > would be good for guidance. > > So, I would suggest it be RECOMMENDED to use e.g. > `urn:ietf:params:oauth:request_uri:<random>` (Brian's proposal) but also that > any URN or URL will do if the circumstances call for it. > > Best, > Filip > > > On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 17:20, Torsten Lodderstedt > <torsten=40lodderstedt....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> another topic from last week’s virtual meeting. >> >> Shall there be guidance on the request URI structure? >> >> Please state your opinion. >> >> thanks in advance, >> Torsten. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
