[OAUTH-WG] Mandatory-to-implement token type

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Stephen, as AD, brought up the question of mandatory-to-implement
token types, in the IETF 82 meeting.  There was some extended
discussion on the point:

- Stephen is firm in his belief that it's necessary for
interoperability.  He notes that mandatory to *implement* is not the
same as mandatory to *use*.
- Several participants believe that without a mechanism for requesting
or negotiating a token type, there is no value in having any type be
mandatory to implement.

Stephen is happy to continue the discussion on the list, and make his
point clear.  In any case, there was clear consensus in the room that
we *should* specify a mandatory-to-implement type, and that that type
be bearer tokens.  This would be specified in the base document, and
would make a normative reference from the base doc to the bearer token
doc.

We need to confirm that consensus on the mailing list, so this starts
the discussion.  Let's work on resolving this over the next week or
so, and moving forward:

1. Should we specify some token type as mandatory to implement?  Why
or why not (*briefly*)?

2. If we do specify one, which token type should it be?

Barry, as chair