[OAUTH-WG] Re: coding agents don't follow the spec for parsing Authorization header

[Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 12:57 PM Warren Parad <wparad=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sure, but Postel's Law is actually harmful. And the "volume of LLM code"
> isn't the relevant metric, but rather "What the future of generated LLM
> code will look like". That is what is being generated at the moment, I
> don't find relevant either, but rather what will be generated in the
> future, and the implications of that. So we should be thoughtful about the
> impact of the spec we write rather than seek to have the spec match only
> what was a past reality. So, I generally recommend disregarding "Postal's
> Law" as a long term strategy. This draft I find to be quite insightful on
> the topic:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-05.html
>

FWIW that draft would become RFC 9413
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9413/>

-- 
_CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately 
by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your 
computer. Thank you._