Re: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer

+1

On 3/11/12 6:05 AM, Manger, James H wrote:
> +1
>
> --
> James Manger
>
> ----- Reply message -----From: "Mike Jones"<Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>  Date: Sun, Mar 11, 2012 4:50 am Subject: [OAUTH-WG] question about the b64token syntax in draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer To: "Paul Madsen"<paul.madsen@gmail.com>, "Brian Campbell"<bcampbell@pingidentity.com>  Cc: "oauth"<oauth@ietf.org>
>
> I plan to make the change to the example access token value tomF_9.B5f-4.1JqM before Monday’s submission deadline, per the requests for b64token syntax clarification. I’m also considering adding an access token response example, pre the requests in this thread. I would propose adding the following new text for this in a new Section 4 (before the current Security Considerations). This is largely parallel to what is done in Section 5.1 of the MAC spec.
>
> 4. Example Access Token Response
>
> Typically a bearer token is returned to the client as part of an OAuth 2.0 [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2] access token response. An example of such as response is:
>
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>
> Content-Type: application/json;charset=UTF-8
>
> Cache-Control: no-store
>
> Pragma: no-cache
>
> {
>
> "access_token":"mF_9.B5f-4.1JqM",
>
> "token_type":"Bearer",
>
> "expires_in":3600,
>
> "refresh_token":"tGzv3JOkF0XG5Qx2TlKWIA"
>
> }
>
> Please send either +1s or objections to this text by mid-day Monday. Unless I receive several +1s, to be conservative at this point, I will not be including it in Monday’s draft.
>
> -- Mike
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth