Jim Schaad <i...@augustcellars.com> wrote:
> The OAuth group discovered a problem with some the names of our new
> OAuth fields that was caused by the fact that they have an ID that is
> someplace between the IESG and the RFC Editor which introduced the
Took a moment to realize that ID = Internet Draft, rather than being
a reference a hash key id :-)
(Which document is this?)
> Why option 1 might be acceptable:
....
> B. If a CWT version is this is really needed, perhaps we can get a
> different design to be used. Specifically, create two new CWT claims:
> "oauth_req", "oauth_resp" and then place the OAuth parameters in those
> fields and not make them CWT claims. I am sure that there would be
> complaints about this, but much as COSE fixed problems that it saw as
> being wrong, the WG could do the same thing.
I prefer this solution, but I feel unsufficiently informed about
how the above ID might come back to bite us.
(I can live with combining registries)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
