IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Tue, 04 October 2011 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.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 59C3E21F8F08 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 36k98dZ2xrCo for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9022621F8F0A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.101]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p94K3V0g001803 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:03:31 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1317758611; bh=cC6PQ6SxJXw99l/4lt7oqpssnec=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jdqaiPHi06V75R1tE2ujH3GPUhjkUnRTDaM2MLDvbwVRm6ca4LIt20ZTTFVYLLNWR elMR9CeMBZ7E0RCfxM/Zw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=SVmwWaApfczvOzT0RJDSy13Ig3ctaGIsVjnDExEuZy60fx8K0MHPiPJBPPNqgu+Sa NJoMyZmTek7culD8ZPlUw==
Received: from ywa8 (ywa8.prod.google.com [10.192.1.8]) by wpaz37.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p94K3FdN016849 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:03:30 -0700
Received: by ywa8 with SMTP id 8so865070ywa.15 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=smiM7rheGFcKd6mZRaEg8P6mL+hTMrxCwMMobISQdTY=; b=Z0E627nyPGR35vkPhvk2lec3a7f6K1usNQd2YbGSCyFLwEdP36dpKp5h0exOKB3sCo I9NTloH6RDjKGZTUyEWg==
Received: by 10.100.17.30 with SMTP id 30mr1413089anq.79.1317758609703; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.17.30 with SMTP id 30mr1413073anq.79.1317758609172; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.142.14 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E8B5BF8.3040407@gmx.de>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C21DD2C@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1129015546C@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <1317621663.4810.YahooMailNeo@web31813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C226298@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <1317704315.93442.YahooMailNeo@web31811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4E8B2DE1.2090706@mtcc.com> <C2C10679-2611-415B-80B7-8526937C1E82@oracle.com> <1317747487.89926.YahooMailNeo@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6B898133-E7D0-45B1-9E3B-3B6DAFCDF671@oracle.com> <CAGdjJpJ+XkyPAJXEJa-3p3tNTxKzMpZXSHmH3H-m-7T9v=4x0Q@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739435C2276BD@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAGdjJpLeGECqjGrMZyBAx+ewA3KcMazaZxJsKS7h1Atj5Tp=Pw@mail.gmail.com> <4E8B5BF8.3040407@gmx.de>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:03:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGdjJpLrK4kVsACwoUM6w6a9wBZeL9TFYAJVPNr787df7eDqJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Possible alternative resolution to 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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:00:30 -0000

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-10-04 20:38, Marius Scurtescu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com
>> <mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    Existing practice is that simple ASCII strings like “email”
>>    “profile”, “openid”, etc. are used as scope elements.  Requiring
>>    them to be URIs would break most existing practice.
>>
>>
>> Aren't these simple strings URIs? I think they are parsed as a URI with
>> no scheme and authority only a path.
>
> No, they are relative references:
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.4.2>.

Right, which in this case are path elements.

Marius

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status