Thanks.
________________________________
From: Mike Jones <[email protected]>
To: William Mills <[email protected]>; Dick Hardt <[email protected]>;
"[email protected] WG" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [IANA #596670] Protocol Action: 'The OAuth 2.0
Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage' to Proposed Standard
(draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23.txt)
“Specification Required” is correct, as that’s what’s used in OAuth Core. I
believe that the case insensitivity comes from RFC 2617, which for instance,
seems to use “Basic” and “basic” interchangeably.
-- Mike
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
William Mills
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:34 AM
To: Dick Hardt; [email protected] WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [IANA #596670] Protocol Action: 'The OAuth 2.0
Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage' to Proposed Standard
(draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23.txt)
1) Is it a problem that everything here seems to have "specification required"
for the "Registration Procedures"?
2) In HTTP Authentication schemes, is the case insensitivity implicit here?
(I think so)
-bill
________________________________
From:Dick Hardt <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected] WG" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Fwd: [IANA #596670] Protocol Action: 'The OAuth 2.0
Authorization Framework: Bearer Token Usage' to Proposed Standard
(draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23.txt)
Once again, would be great to have a few more eyes checking the IANA
registrations.
Note these are for the Bearer Token spec.
I like that the error registry items are sorted alphabetically already. :)
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email protected]>
Subject: [IANA #596670] Protocol Action: 'The OAuth 2.0 Authorization
Framework: Bearer Token Usage' to Proposed Standard
(draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23.txt)
Date: August 10, 2012 12:20:33 PM PDT
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear Authors:
ATTENTION: A RESPONSE TO THIS MESSAGE IS NEEDED
We have completed the IANA Actions for RFC-to-be
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23
ACTION 1:
IANA has registered the following OAuth Access Token Type:
Name: Bearer
Additional Endpoint Response Parameters:
HTTP Authentication Scheme(s): Bearer
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [RFC-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23]
Please see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters
ACTION 2:
IANA has registered the following in the OAuth Extensions Error Registry:
invalid_request
Usage Location: Resource access error response
Protocol Extension: Bearer access token type
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [RFC-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23]
invalid_token
Usage Location: Resource access error response
Protocol Extension: Bearer access token type
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [RFC-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23]
insufficient_scope
Usage Location: Resource access error response
Protocol Extension: Bearer access token type
Change Controller: IETF
Reference: [RFC-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-23]
Please see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/oauth-parameters
Please let us know whether the above IANA Actions look OK. As
soon as we receive your confirmation, we'll notify the RFC Editor
that this document's IANA Actions are complete. (If this document
has a team of authors, one reply on behalf of everyone will suffice.)
Thanks,
Amanda Baber
ICANN/IANA
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
