after re-reading I'm for #2
From: Mike Jones
To: "oauth@ietf.org"
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26
Thus far, I believe those who have expressed opinions have been pretty evenly
split
On 2011-10-07 16:15, Manger, James H wrote:
Option 3 has a serious flaw in that it requires escaping the "\" in
"\u", because it is the escape character in quoted-string. I think
it's certain that people will be confused by that, and interop problems
will happen (unless you have a strong test
> Option 3 has a serious flaw in that it requires escaping the "\" in
> "\u", because it is the escape character in quoted-string. I think
> it's certain that people will be confused by that, and interop problems
> will happen (unless you have a strong test suite).
No, the "\" in "\u" w
On 2011-10-07 11:17, Mike Jones wrote:
Thus far, I believe those who have expressed opinions have been pretty
evenly split between 2 and 3 on the scope issue. I’ve seen no support
for 1 since I sent my request for opinions.
Option 3 has a serious flaw in that it requires escaping the "\" in
"\
Thus far, I believe those who have expressed opinions have been pretty evenly
split between 2 and 3 on the scope issue. I’ve seen no support for 1 since I
sent my request for opinions.
For the error_description issue, I’ve seen support for C, whereas I’ve heard
criticisms voiced against A and
On 2011-09-28 05:50, Manger, James H wrote:
I'll have another go trying to explain the problem I see with the scope
parameter in the Bearer spec.
Consider a French social network that decides to offer an API using OAuth2. It
chooses 3 scope values for parts of the API related to family, friend
Introducing URI semantics for scope values containing colons seems like
unnecessary and unmotivated invention at this point. In the core spec, scope
values are case-sensitive strings separated by spaces. That's it. Nothing
about URIs or colons. I believe that the scope semantics of the core
