Hi all,
Now that you've broken the back of the work on oauth 2.0 and
before we get into re-chartering discussions, I think its a
good time to make any chairing changes that are needed.
For a while now, Blaine hasn't really had the required cycles
or e.g. travel support to chair an IETF group an
-1
credentials = "Bearer" 1*SP b64token
would make sense.
credentials = "Bearer" 1*SP ( b64token / #auth-param )
does not make sense as the spec doesn't define a way to carry the bearer token
in the #auth-param choice.
--
James Manger
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@i
> From: Mike Jones
>
> Issue #26 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/oauth/trac/ticket/26 asks whether the
> semantics of scope strings should be changed to require that the % character
> be interpreted as introducing a percent-encoded character that follows. My
> proposed resolution is that %-encodi
> My proposed resolution is that %-encoding not be required in the
> specification
I agree with your analysis, now that I see it laid out clearly. I
would feel better, though, if there were text in the document that
explained that to others, who read it later. Perhaps, using your
words, we could
On 2011-09-24 02:13, Mike Jones wrote:
Thanks for your comments, Julian. Responses to them, which reflect the
content of draft 09, follow inline.
Thanks!
...
2.1. The Authorization Request Header Field
The "Authorization" request header field is used by clients to make
authenticated request
