>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Mike Jones
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:49 PM
> >> To: Julian Reschke
> >> Cc: Mark Nottingham
Julian Reschke ; "oauth@ietf.org"
>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:11 AM
>Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] FYI - Text resolving DISCUSS issue about Bearer URI
>Query Parameter method
>
>
>Regardless of how we got here, just feels strange to have a
>strong recommendation again
On 2012-05-24 09:02, Mike Jones wrote:
My recollection is that putting it in an appendix was explicitly rejected in
the threads discussing the DISCUSS issues and no one on those threads pushed
back afterwards, particularly after Dick's explanations of why it should stay.
(Why these DISCUSS di
-- Mike
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:m...@mnot.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:54 PM
> To: Eran Hammer
> Cc: Mike Jones; Julian Reschke; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] FYI - Text resolving DISCUSS issue about Bearer
> URI Qu
To: Eran Hammer
Cc: Mike Jones; Julian Reschke; oauth@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] FYI - Text resolving DISCUSS issue about Bearer URI
Query Parameter method
Thanks, Eran - I was just about to ask about that.
On 24/05/2012, at 4:53 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
> I don't care about this eit
is not in touch with the realities of the web."
>>
>> -- Mike
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:36 PM
>> To: Mike Jones
>>
ehalf
> Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:49 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Mark Nottingham; oauth@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] FYI - Text resolving DISCUSS issue about Bearer
> URI Query Parameter method
>
> Yes, putting the query parameter method int
TH-WG] FYI - Text resolving DISCUSS issue about Bearer URI
Query Parameter method
I'm confused by this change given the access_token (or oauth_token) parameter
being the most widely deployed usage of the protocol over the past eighteen
months:
* https://developers.facebook.com/docs/ref
with the realities of the web."
-- Mike
-Original Message-
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:36 PM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: oauth@ietf.org; Mark Nottingham
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] FYI - Text resolving DISCUSS issue about Bea
RFCs tend to last longer than 18 months. And many companies.
Thanks,
On 24/05/2012, at 4:46 PM, David Recordon wrote:
> I'm confused by this change given the access_token (or oauth_token) parameter
> being the most widely deployed usage of the protocol over the past eighteen
> months:
>
> *
I'm confused by this change given the access_token (or oauth_token)
parameter being the most widely deployed usage of the protocol over the
past eighteen months:
* https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/
* https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2WebServer#callinganapi
* ht
On 2012-05-18 09:15, Julian Reschke wrote:
...
Did you consider to *also* move the whole section into an appendix, so
that it's status is also reflected by the document structure?
Best regards, Julian
Hi, it would be awesome to see feedback on this (it has been mentioned
during IETF LC multip
On 2012-05-18 00:11, Mike Jones wrote:
Dear working group members:
I'm going through the remaining open issues that have been raised about
the Bearer spec so as to be ready to publish an updated draft once the
outstanding consensus call issues are resolved.
This DISCUSS had been raised about th
wfm
>
> From: Mike Jones
>To: "oauth@ietf.org"
>Cc: Mark Nottingham
>Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 3:11 PM
>Subject: [OAUTH-WG] FYI - Text resolving DISCUSS issue about Bearer URI Query
>Parameter method
>
>
>
&g
Dear working group members:
I'm going through the remaining open issues that have been raised about the
Bearer spec so as to be ready to publish an updated draft once the outstanding
consensus call issues are resolved.
This DISCUSS had been raised about the URI Query Parameter method:
*
15 matches
Mail list logo
