earer”. I think
> including OAuth in the name makes sense because it is defined in that
> context, but we’ve already talked about other possible token types.
>
> Is there any argument in favor of simply using “OAuth2” that offsets the
> possible confusion and muddiness?
>
r of simply using "OAuth2" that offsets the
possible confusion and muddiness?
-bill
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Jones
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:36 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token Specification draft
Remove the oauth_token parameter registration. It has nothing to do with the
token endpoint.
EHL
On Jan 28, 2011, at 13:36, "Mike Jones"
mailto:michael.jo...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
I’ve published draft 02 of the bearer token specification. This incorporates
consensus feedback received to dat
ble confusion and muddiness?
-bill
From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Jones
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:36 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token Specification draft -02
I've published draft 02 of the bearer token specifi
un...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike
Jones
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 1:36 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token Specification draft -02
I've published draft 02 of the bearer token specification. This incorporates
consensus feedback received to date. It
I've published draft 02 of the bearer token specification. This incorporates
consensus feedback received to date. It contains no normative changes relative
to draft 01. Your feedback is solicited. Specific changes were:
* Changed terminology from "token reuse" to "token capture and r
