Thanks for your further feedback. Just a couple of comments back (eliding
other portions of the thread):
On 8 Mar 2010, at 2:21 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
On 2010-03-05, at 6:57 AM, Eve Maler wrote:
2c. Currently, WRAP doesn't say anything about how to fill the scope
parameter value. In this
On 2010-03-09, at 7:05 AM, Eve Maler wrote:
It's a good idea to give guidance on how the scope parameter should be used.
That way, it will help avoid abuse of the parameter for other purposes, and
clashes if different deployments are using it in different ways. (I suspect
that the
On 2010-03-05, at 6:57 AM, Eve Maler wrote:
More below...
On 4 Mar 2010, at 5:43 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
Thanks Eve, comments inserted ...
On 2010-03-04, at 12:51 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
As requested on today's call, here's a description of the places where UMA
seems to need more than
As requested on today's call, here's a description of the places where UMA
seems to need more than what the WRAP paradigm offers (both profiling and
extending), based on the proposal at:
Hi Eve
Looking at the WRAP oriented comments in the spec, here are some comments /
questions:
Note
WRAP doesn't seem to say HTTPS is required for the user authorization URL; is
this a bug in the WRAP spec? If not, is it a good idea for us to profile it in
this way? Finally, is this the right
Thanks Eve, comments inserted ...
On 2010-03-04, at 12:51 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
As requested on today's call, here's a description of the places where UMA
seems to need more than what the WRAP paradigm offers (both profiling and
extending), based on the proposal at:
