Thanks Hannes. Great list of to-do items for the WG :) > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:08 AM > > This is probably the most important item were people will want to > write > extensions for. Currently, we have the following onces in the > document: > 1) Web Server > 2) User Agent > 3) Native Application > 4) Autonomous > Note that the actual profile identifiers aren't clearly listed in > the > document at the moment (or are inconsistent, such as "user_agent" and > "user-agent" for the user agent profile).
Is the plan to have a separate document for each profile? I'm assuming that we are all waiting for the draft-oath-v2 to stabilize (ps. it's gone from version 05 to 08 in a matter of 2-3 weeks, and now going to 09). We need to lock-down, I think. Need to distinguish between major/significant changes to minor/typo fixes. > An open question might be whether there is a possibility for an > extension (other than a new profile) to define an optional parameter > that may get used with an existing profile. Note that at the moment > there is no registry for parameters. It depends on what meaning of "profile" and "extension". If the optional parameter is used in one of the profiles (use-cases) only, then it should not be place into the core draft-oauth-v2. If the optional parameter ends-up being used in all the profiles (use-cases), then add it to the core. I think this is where you draw the line (otherwise all sorts of weird and wonderful parameters ends-up in the core draft). /thomas/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
