#section-5.2.1
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:52 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
>
> Eran,
>
nger
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:10 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
>
> Eran,
>
h-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:10 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
>
> Eran,
>
> > How would you suggest we define a general purpose www-authenticate
> &g
Hi all,
based on the feedback from the group on the list we go forward with the
document split.
Mike had kindly offered to edit the bearer specification and we are happy to
hear that. Thank you Mike. I am looking forward to see the first document.
Ciao
Hannes
On 10/14/10 3:32 AM, "Blaine Cook
;> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Marius Scurtescu
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:55 AM
>> To: Mike Jones
>> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
>>
>> +
; Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:55 AM
> To: Mike Jones
> Cc: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
>
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Mike Jones
> wrote:
> > I am willing to serve as editor for the bea
etf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Blaine Cook
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:32 PM
> To: oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
>
> Over the past few weeks, the working group debated the issues around the
> introd
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Mike Jones
wrote:
> I am willing to serve as editor for the bearer token specification and have my
> management's approval to do so. Furthermore, I believe that I am qualified,
> having successfully served as an editor for several standards specifications,
> incl
tf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
>
> Eran,
>
> > How would you suggest we define a general purpose www-authenticate
> > header that does not have a matching request header?
>
> Why would that be a problem?
> We define what a &
Eran,
> How would you suggest we define a general purpose www-authenticate
> header that does not have a matching request header?
Why would that be a problem?
We define what a "WWW-Authenticate: OAuth2 ..." response header means, but
don't define any meaning for a "Authorization: OAuth2 ..." req
have a matching request header?
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Manger, James H
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:20 PM
> To: Blaine Cook; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus
nd 5.1.3.
* Keep 5.2, and 5.2.1.
--
James Manger
-Original Message-
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Blaine Cook
Sent: Thursday, 14 October 2010 11:32 AM
To: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
Over the past few week
oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Call for Consensus on Document Split
Over the past few weeks, the working group debated the issues around the
introduction of signatures and the structure of the specification.
The working group seems to endorse the proposal to split the current
specification int
Over the past few weeks, the working group debated the issues around
the introduction of signatures and the structure of the specification.
The working group seems to endorse the proposal to split the current
specification into two parts: one including section 5 (bearer token)
and the other includi
14 matches
Mail list logo
