t IIW will be published
> shortly.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:04 PM
> To: OAuth WG
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Bikeshedding poll: 'attribut
decisions reached at IIW will be published shortly.
-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eran
Hammer-Lahav
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:04 PM
To: OAuth WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Bikeshedding poll: 'attributes' parameter vs.
Abstain. (The reason: I cannot predict how the tokens will evolve.)
Igor
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 16:04 -0500, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
I'm defining a new token type: MAC based on my previous HTTP Token
authentication draft (which in turn was based on 1.0a HMAC-SHA1). This is being
drafted
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Justin Richer wrote:
> #1
>
> #2 feels like overengineering, and we're going to end up with things
> that spit back stuff that aren't token attributes anyway that will want
> to put them at the top level.
>
> Also, no need to require a more complex structure. I trie
#1
#2 feels like overengineering, and we're going to end up with things
that spit back stuff that aren't token attributes anyway that will want
to put them at the top level.
Also, no need to require a more complex structure. I tried to make it so
that the XML encoding can handle more complex thi
I'm defining a new token type: MAC based on my previous HTTP Token
authentication draft (which in turn was based on 1.0a HMAC-SHA1). This is being
drafted and implemented in my current project (in node.js). I will have a draft
to share shortly (I do not plan to make this a WG item, but will not
