That's never going to be complete and will be out of date before the RFC is out. Another example is a good idea.
EHL On May 26, 2011, at 10:10, "Igor Faynberg" <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, I would go even further: Provide a list of different ways of > redirecting and address each of them, or at least each class of > redirects with the same characteristics. > > Igor > > Anthony Nadalin wrote: >> >> The OAuth spec is somewhat silent about how a resource provider should >> perform a redirect as there are many ways to accomplish the redirect. >> We also discovered that since the HTTP specifications were somewhat >> vague on fragments that some HTTP client implementations strip the >> fragment, we have the case in our implementation of WinINET. >> >> So would like to propose that wording be added in 2.1.1 to the effect >> that “There are many ways to perform the redirection and the fact that >> some HTTP client implementations strip the fragment so take this into >> consideration when choosing a redirect technology.” It might be also >> good to add an example of a different style redirect as I believe all >> the samples use 302 . >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
