mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Eran Hammer
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:42 PM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token DISCUSS items related to errors
>
> I'm just looking at the parts copie
dre [mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:38 PM
> To: Eran Hammer
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token DISCUSS items related to errors
>
> On 5/9/12 6:17 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
>
> > All Russ was asking for is
On 5/9/12 6:17 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
> All Russ was asking for is an explanation. Instead, he was told there
> was no good reason and that it should be changed. That was clearly not
> an honest representation of clear working group consensus from over 10
> months ago which was achieved at great e
ehalf Of Eran Hammer
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:17 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org> WG
(oauth@ietf.org<mailto:oauth@ietf.org>)
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token DISCUSS items related to errors
Most people on this WG are not aware of all the details around the on-goi
kly addressed and we can finally achieve OAuth 2.0 RFCs.
-- Mike
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran
Hammer
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:17 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org WG (oauth@ietf.org)
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token DISC
Most people on this WG are not aware of all the details around the on-going
IESG review and my objections to making additional changes to the core
specification. Currently, these are the open issues preventing the bearer
specification from being approved:
>From Russ Housley:
Section 3.1 spec
