Re: [OAUTH-WG] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt

2012-01-29 Thread Mike Jones
Thanks for your useful feedback, Alexey. Below, I'll respond to each of your comments. I've also added the OAuth working group to the thread, so they are aware of them as well and can participate in the discussion. About your first issue with the WWW-Authenticate ABNF, I am already working wi

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Question related Implicit Grant Type

2012-01-29 Thread William Mills
There are a couple of cases where you could have a much simpler API than HTTP, implicit is one of those.  All in all though it's easier to leave everything under the same rules, instead of having to define a new protocol for thing like implicit. I think that answers your question? -bill ___

Re: [OAUTH-WG] AD Review of -22 (part II)

2012-01-29 Thread agks mehx
I would be unhappy if things were sugarcoated any further. This is definitely a rare specification where OPTIONAL parameters in the API can be REQUIRED by a conforming implmentation (as I discussed in my note on the scope parameter for which the proposed modification does not really change much)

[OAUTH-WG] Question related Implicit Grant Type

2012-01-29 Thread Security Developer
Hi, My question is, why web hosted resource is needed to extract the access token? Thanks for your time. ___ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth