Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

Thus far, I've received no responses preferring 1 or 2 or preferring A or B.  Could people please weigh in so that the working group has data to base a decision on to close this issue?

                                                            Thanks,
                                                            -- Mike

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mike Jones
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:53 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to issue 26

There seems to now be more working group interest in representing non-ASCII characters in scope strings than had previously been in evidence.  If we decide to define a standard representation for doing so, using RFC 5987<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5987> (Character Set and Language Encoding for Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Parameters) seems to be the clear choice.  I'd be interested in knowing how many working group members are in favor of either:

1.  Using RFC 5987 encoding for the scope parameter.
2.  Continuing to specify no non-ASCII encoding for scope parameter values.

As a related issue, some working group members have objected to specifying UTF-8 encoding of the error_description value, requesting the use of RFC 5987 encoding instead.  I'd also be interested in knowing how many working group members are in favor of either:

A.  Using RFC 5987 encoding for the error_description parameter.
B.  Continuing to specify UTF-8 encoding for the error_description parameter.

(As editor, I would make the observation that if we choose RFC 5987 encoding for either of these parameters, it would be logical to do so for the other one as well.)

In the interest of finishing the specification in a way that meets everyone's needs,
                                                            -- Mike