Because b64token is existing practice -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:24 AM To: Mike Jones Cc: Manger, James H; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-08.txt WGLC comments
On 2011-10-12 20:02, Mike Jones wrote: > The syntax in HTTPbis is: > credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / #auth-param ) ] > > The syntax in Bearer 09 is: > credentials = "Bearer" 1*SP ( b64token / #auth-param ) > > As this conforms to HTTPbis, I don't see a problem. I think HTTPbis and > Bearer are both fine as-is. The intent is that a scheme uses one of the two constructs, not both. Bearer can't use auth-params and b64tokens in the same challenge, so it's unclear to me how this is supposed to work. If you have a notation where you can express the bearer token as auth-param then why don't you *always* use it and get rid of the b64token construct? Best regards, Julian _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
