IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -19

Lucy Lynch <lynch@isoc.org> Mon, 25 July 2011 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lynch@isoc.org>
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 4D3C321F8B9D for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlPikcxN5bJg for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hiroshima.bogus.com (hiroshima.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8574B21F8B9B for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hiroshima.bogus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hiroshima.bogus.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6PHBHED009263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lynch@isoc.org)
Received: from localhost (llynch@localhost) by hiroshima.bogus.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id p6PHBGoQ009260; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lynch@isoc.org)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:11:16 -0700
From: Lucy Lynch <lynch@isoc.org>
X-X-Sender: llynch@hiroshima.bogus.com
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345023C0B3A3@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1107251011060.9211@hiroshima.bogus.com>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345021F378BF@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <4E2D5F94.9020207@stpeter.im> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1107250643270.88464@hiroshima.bogus.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72345023C0B3A3@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -19
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lynch@isoc.org
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: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:15:13 -0000

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> The term Redirection URI describes the URI provided by the client 
> throughout the document. The additional parameters added later by the 
> authorization server are part of the redirection request but not the URI 
> provided by the client.

Thanks -

> EHL
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lucy Lynch [mailto:llynch@civil-tongue.net]
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 6:46 AM
>> To: Peter Saint-Andre
>> Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; OAuth WG
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Draft -19
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/25/11 4:06 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>>> Draft 19 includes all the feedback received for -18:
>>>
>>> BTW, the diff is here:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-oauth-v2-19.txt
>>
>>
>> clarifying question on section 10.1 -
>>
>> I'm reading this as suggested handling for the Client URI portion of a
>> redirection endpoint - is that correct?
>>
>>> /psa
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email