On 28/06/2010 06:37, Dick Hardt wrote: > I vote for (3) unless a good (4) is suggested.
Ditto. p > On 2010-06-27, at 6:51 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > >> Over the past year many people expressed concerns about the use of the >> ‘realm’ WWW-Authenticate header parameter. The parameter is defined in >> RFC 2617 as required, and is allowed to have scheme-specific structure. >> >> We have a few options: >> >> 1. Leave it as required under the definition of RFC 2617 (i.e. provide >> no help, developers will need to ready 2617 and figure out what to do >> with it). >> 2. Update 2617 to remove the requirement – this is not going to be >> easy or possible to predict success. >> 3. Provide specific guidance as to what to do with the realm parameter. >> 4. Something else. >> >> Comments? >> >> EHL >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
