Re: [OAUTH-WG] What to do about 'realm'

+1

Am 28.06.2010 07:37, schrieb Dick Hardt:
> I vote for (3) unless a good (4) is suggested.
>
> On 2010-06-27, at 6:51 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>
>> Over the past year many people expressed concerns about the use of 
>> the ‘realm’ WWW-Authenticate header parameter. The parameter is 
>> defined in RFC 2617 as required, and is allowed to have 
>> scheme-specific structure.
>> We have a few options:
>> 1. Leave it as required under the definition of RFC 2617 (i.e. 
>> provide no help, developers will need to ready 2617 and figure out 
>> what to do with it).
>> 2. Update 2617 to remove the requirement – this is not going to be 
>> easy or possible to predict success.
>> 3. Provide specific guidance as to what to do with the realm parameter.
>> 4. Something else.
>> Comments?
>> EHL
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>