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

#3 +1

> 2010/6/28 Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>:
> > 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
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OAuth mailing list
> > OAuth@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> http://lukasrosenstock.net/
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>