#3 +1
> 2010/6/28 Dick Hardt <[email protected]>: > > I vote for (3) unless a good (4) is suggested. > > 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] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OAuth mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > > > > > -- > http://lukasrosenstock.net/ > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
