Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification

SM <> Mon, 09 January 2012 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D797321F883C for <>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:47:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jlYqJZ0+V3J2 for <>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:47:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCBB21F883B for <>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:47:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q09Fkx4F027938 for <>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:47:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1326124026;; bh=wU9x+7Tk18vv55FDBudrPhzqgG05MBAsyleQ6bxQvm8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=dToc00YBTJRmIGnhmNSo0TWRZaulVcW4GTAxF1crjMAHv1QQOkI7UnllsFMuKs99n kar5yyYdMMn5B5yZBb0mSTVABeDKeS0RqxmlNgSQ6lfjbKhbO6ETA60lHCX9J1Rrrb lY3NvWayekaQcsNfj7V6z4yNh3xT3fyC0f94UcjM=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:39:02 -0800
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <CAG+j4TrQGwiDj01huDgfEy+02b4=tTDYifiXcvhDHrw3i32-6Q@mail.g>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Seeking Clarification: Potential Ambiguity in Specification
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: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:47:13 -0000

At 14:12 08-01-2012, agks mehx wrote:
>I reported this to the vendor and the vendor claims that the IETF 
>draft specification says scope is OPTIONAL and that means the vendor 
>is free to make it required in a conforming implementation.

If a bit is said to be optional, it means that it will not cause any 
interoperability issues if that bit is added or not added.  If the 
vendor claims that the bit is required in a conforming 
implementation, they are free to do so as the decision about what 
conforms of what does not conform is theirs alone.

 From your message, it is not clear whether you are:

   (i)  Asking for a clarification in a specification; or

   (ii) Trying to resolve a disagreement with a vendor.