Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 24 September 2011 13:30 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2B321F8B1D for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RyMJ+97uGJfd for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59EC21F8B1A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so4086778yxt.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wyWiHBzIxv95m86To1HwH/b4GdVI2zQ3+8Jd/u/34xQ=; b=hp2F7e367fOiM34fpaATsgw293+0iOR92MrisIjaBiJxlPZupk9NaGCtigj+qxjq/r SWLK7s6Paxq+SZaPwm4TOvQVihwDsEmlqmaKxcdNH6nJiXCI0nRuVuINQ2gRYl0crn1t oUpl7SsEUaaJYxFUhWOxDo0gOe+GlkOVCbXXM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.185.228 with SMTP id u64mr28334231yhm.91.1316871186845; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.146.83.8 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C1FC6A1@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C1FC6A1@TK5EX14MBXC285.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:33:06 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4qJ5GVOv3tBqB8vu4myAXhWthYM
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDOPaMif55L6JAU4C8aERHgt6M0ntet7GKwgQJbUQKMZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:30:30 -0000
> My proposed resolution is that %-encoding not be required in the > specification I agree with your analysis, now that I see it laid out clearly. I would feel better, though, if there were text in the document that explained that to others, who read it later. Perhaps, using your words, we could make this change to section 2.4: OLD The "scope" attribute is a space-delimited list of scope values indicating the required scope of the access token for accessing the requested resource. The "scope" attribute MUST NOT appear more than once. NEW The "scope" attribute is a space-delimited list of scope values indicating the required scope of the access token for accessing the requested resource. The "scope" attribute MUST NOT appear more than once. Interpretation of scope strings requires semantic agreement on the meaning of the scope strings between the parties participating the OAuth flow. Should an encoding be used for scope strings in a particular deployment context, participants have to have agreed upon that encoding, just as they agree on other OAuth configuration parameters. Does that work? Barry
- [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Barry Leiba
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Julian Reschke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Mike Jones
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Marius Scurtescu
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Brian Campbell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Mark Lentczner
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Julian Reschke
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Justin Richer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26 Julian Reschke