Re: [OAUTH-WG] What to do about 'realm'

+1

2010/6/28 Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>:
> I vote for (3) unless a good (4) is suggested.
> On 2010-06-27, at 6:51 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>
> Over the past year many people expressed concerns about the use of the
> ‘realm’ WWW-Authenticate header parameter. The parameter is defined in RFC
> 2617 as required, and is allowed to have scheme-specific structure.
>
> We have a few options:
>
> 1. Leave it as required under the definition of RFC 2617 (i.e. provide no
> help, developers will need to ready 2617 and figure out what to do with it).
> 2. Update 2617 to remove the requirement – this is not going to be easy or
> possible to predict success.
> 3. Provide specific guidance as to what to do with the realm parameter.
> 4. Something else.
>
> Comments?
>
> EHL
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>


-- 
http://lukasrosenstock.net/