I agree that is the cleanest. John B. On 2011-10-14, at 3:18 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
> I think that William Mills already gave the best answer to the extensibility > question when he wrote: > "I think removing the auth-param usage is workable. Then if we need > extensibility defining a new scheme can do that. It's a bit more work that > way if needed, but it's clean." > > Best wishes, > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 11:14 AM > To: Bob Van Zant > Cc: OAuth WG > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-09: Open Issues & Proposed > Resolutions > > Hi Bob, > > the question is only how to provide extensibility then. You are then > essentially forced to know, because of pre-arrangements, what the content of > the blob is going to be. > > Is that also fine for you? > > On Oct 14, 2011, at 7:04 PM, Bob Van Zant wrote: > >> I'm in favor of removing the auth param option. It seems that half the >> point of the Bearer token is to have a very simple way of passing >> around opaque tokens. >> >> If there are reasons for building a more feature-ful token with cool >> parameters then let's bring about a new token type. For now I like the >> brain dead simple Bearer: >> >> credentials = "Bearer" 1*SP b64token >> >> -Bob > > Ciao > Hannes > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
