Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26

[Mike Jones <[e-mail]>]

Sounds good to me.  Are others good with this wording?

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 6:33 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed resolution for issue 26

> My proposed resolution is that %-encoding not be required in the 
> specification

I agree with your analysis, now that I see it laid out clearly.  I would feel better, though, if there were text in the document that explained that to others, who read it later.  Perhaps, using your words, we could make this change to section 2.4:

OLD
   The "scope" attribute is a space-delimited list of scope values
   indicating the required scope of the access token for accessing the
   requested resource.  The "scope" attribute MUST NOT appear more than
   once.

NEW
   The "scope" attribute is a space-delimited list of scope values
   indicating the required scope of the access token for accessing the
   requested resource.  The "scope" attribute MUST NOT appear more than
   once.

   Interpretation of scope strings requires semantic agreement on the
   meaning of the scope strings between the parties participating the
   OAuth flow.  Should an encoding be used for scope strings in a
   particular deployment context, participants have to have agreed
   upon that encoding, just as they agree on other OAuth configuration
   parameters.

Does that work?

Barry