I'm likewise OK with #1. As I'd written previously, I wasn't religious about
the name "OAuth2"; I was for it for to be consistent with past drafts and so as
not to introduce a breaking change. Given that there appears to be consensus
to make a change, I'll plan on publishing a draft later this week that contains
it unless discussion in the next few days convinces us that we should follow a
different course.
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Marius Scurtescu
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:24 AM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Bearer token type and scheme name (deadline: 2/10)
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike, Brian, Dirk, and Marius - can you live with #1?
Works for me.
Marius
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
