How about a few min on proof-of-possession requirements? I can present our use
cases and requirements
-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Jones
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 4:42 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig; oauth@ietf.org WG
Subje
I'm good with this change.
BTW, I suggest we put parenthesis around the new sentences, making it clear
that they are an aside, rather than a normative part of the error code
definitions. So the text would then read:
server_error
The authorization server encountered an unexpected
I am OK with that wording. It is not a change just a clarification that may
make things clearer to developers.
John B.
On 2012-07-14, at 6:18 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> Great suggestion Charles. I think this is a good clarification. I'll adjust
> the copy you sent to be what follows in a new draf
Great suggestion Charles. I think this is a good clarification. I'll adjust the
copy you sent to be what follows in a new draft published tomorrow evening
(Sunday PT) unless someone objects.
-- Dick
In both sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.2.2.1:
server_error
The authorization server encounter
I'd also like to see Core -29 and Bearer -22 go to the RFC Editor.
-- Mike
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
Bradley
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 4:05 AM
To: Dick Hardt
Cc: draft-ietf-oauth...
