Thus far, I've received no responses preferring 1 or 2 or preferring A or B.
Could people please weigh in so that the working group has data to base a
decision on to close this issue?
Thanks,
-- Mike
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike
Jones
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26
There seems to now be more working group interest in representing non-ASCII
characters in scope strings than had previously been in evidence. If we decide
to define a standard representation for doing so, using RFC
5987<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5987> (Character Set and Language Encoding
for Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Parameters) seems to be the
clear choice. I'd be interested in knowing how many working group members are
in favor of either:
1. Using RFC 5987 encoding for the scope parameter.
2. Continuing to specify no non-ASCII encoding for scope parameter values.
As a related issue, some working group members have objected to specifying
UTF-8 encoding of the error_description value, requesting the use of RFC 5987
encoding instead. I'd also be interested in knowing how many working group
members are in favor of either:
A. Using RFC 5987 encoding for the error_description parameter.
B. Continuing to specify UTF-8 encoding for the error_description parameter.
(As editor, I would make the observation that if we choose RFC 5987 encoding
for either of these parameters, it would be logical to do so for the other one
as well.)
In the interest of finishing the specification in a way that meets everyone's
needs,
-- Mike
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
