Can you recommend specific wording changes to address both issues?
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 12:13 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token Specification Draft -10
On 2011-10-20 01:38, Mike Jones wrote:
> Draft 10
> <http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-10.html> of
> the OAuth 2.0 Bearer Token Specification
> <http://self-issued.info/docs/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.html> has
> been published, which incorporates consensus decisions reached since
> Working Group Last Call feedback. It closes all open issues. It
> contains the following changes:
> ...
This is better.
I still see problems though.
Section 2.2 specifies to use application/x-www-form-urlencoded encoding, but
doesn't mention the character encoding to use. This may be a non-issue now for
scopes, but it would be for extension parameters.
Section 2.4 still uses quoted parameters without using the quoted-string
constructs. This leaves implementers in the dark about whether they can use
existing quoted-string parsers or not.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
