Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Authorization endpoint parameter extension policy: {templates}

2010-04-16 Thread Manger, James H
Marius > When replacing the placeholders with actual values, how do you know > what encoding should be used? Does URL encoding work in all cases? %-escaping any chars outside the 66 chars works in (almost) all cases. The only exception is if you want a non-ASCII value substituted into a domain

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Authorization endpoint parameter extension policy: {templates}

2010-04-16 Thread Marius Scurtescu
When replacing the placeholders with actual values, how do you know what encoding should be used? Does URL encoding work in all cases? Marius On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Manger, James H wrote: > A partial solution to colliding parameter names and long URIS would be to > use URI templates.

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Authorization endpoint parameter extension policy: {templates}

2010-04-16 Thread Eran Hammer-Lahav
I really like it, but it is too complicated and requires a standard template format (which will need to be profiled to be practical). This is going in the wrong direction... EHL On 4/16/10 7:33 AM, "James Manger" wrote: A partial solution to colliding parameter names and long URIS would be t

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: Authorization endpoint parameter extension policy: {templates}

2010-04-16 Thread Manger, James H
A partial solution to colliding parameter names and long URIS would be to use URI templates. For instance, in a 401 response when a client app tries to access a protected resource, instead of an authz URI, return a template for an authz URI. The template would include OAuth field names in squ