Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Core -28 and Bearer -21 specs published

Julian Reschke <> Wed, 20 June 2012 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C39E21F8745 for <>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.137
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.538, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DSRIESxYFYpU for <>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 9811E21F8743 for <>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2012 15:01:21 -0000
Received: from (EHLO []) [] by (mp001) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2012 17:01:21 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+ybVc3VFWytRMO2mbJ2gDGmgoKBm4xaymgXq/k0k a95eeSQWUyho5Z
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:01:17 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Jones <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "OAuth WG (" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] OAuth Core -28 and Bearer -21 specs published
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:01:24 -0000

On 2012-06-20 16:51, Mike Jones wrote:
> Julian, I don't believe that it's the intent of either Eran or myself to ignore your concerns - far from it.  That being said, what's frustrating from my personal perspective is that we've asked you to provide specific proposed text changes that would address your concerns several times and you don't do it.  It's probably just me, but I personally find the descriptions of your concerns vague and unclear - making it hard to make them actionable.  Specific proposed text changes would make them actionable.
> Could you please provide specific changes for Eran's use for when he considers them on Monday?  I think it would help a lot.
> 				Thank you,
> 				-- Mike

Sorry, can't do that; not just because I don't have time but also 
because I don't understand the spec sufficiently do decide what needs to 
be done.

What's clear is that you can't silently mix ABNFs for byte sequences and 
character sequences. You need to be clear about what is what. I can't 
answer that. I provided you with a reference to similar text in a spec I 
wrote a few years ago; please borrow from it.

With respect to the POST/media-type/encoding issue I *did* make a 
concrete proposal.

Best regards, Julian