to propose new names.
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>
> [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf
> Of Luke Shepard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:46 AM
> To:
propose new names.
>
> EHL
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Luke Shepard
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:46 AM
> > To: oauth@ietf.org
> > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Consistency i
. This is the only place
I feel strongly about not changing it.
Feel free to propose new names.
EHL
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Luke Shepard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:46 AM
> To: oauth@ietf.
There are potentially three names for access tokens in this spec:
- token
- access_token
- oauth_token
You hit the /oauth/access_token endpoint, and get back access_token=blah. Then
you take that string and pass it to the protected resource as oauth_token=blah.
Developers that have prototyped t
