Because 2.0 deployments are not likely to share the same credentials with 1.0, or at least it is not something I would like to suggest. This is a new protocol.
EHL On 8/31/10 3:12 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: Why not? Bill On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 10:10 -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > It does not need to have any normative references to 5849. > > EHL > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Bill de hÓra > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 5:47 AM > To: David Recordon > Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Token Upgrade Extension > > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 20:26 +0000, David Recordon wrote: > > This draft is now an Internet Draft and I'm curious if anyone has any > > feedback on it? > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-recordon-oauth-v2-upgrade-00 > > > > replace > > [[[ > client_id > REQUIRED. The client identifier as described in Section 2 of > [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2]. > > client_secret > REQUIRED. The client secret as described in Section 2 of > [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2]. > ]]] > > with > > {{{ > client_id > REQUIRED. The client identifier as described in Section 2 of > [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2], the value of which is the oauth_consumer_key > as described in [@@@rfc5849] > > client_secret > REQUIRED. The client secret as described in Section 2 of > [I-D.ietf.oauth-v2],the value of which is the shared-secret > as described in "3.4 Signature" of [@@@rfc5849] }}} > > The draft needs to reference rfc5849 rather than OAuth 1.0. > > Bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
