Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 25 January 2012 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1606721F84A6 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:37:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.837, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id baA0LvCc1vYu for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 66AD421F849C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2012 08:37:16 -0000
Received: from p5DCC2B6A.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.43.106] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 25 Jan 2012 09:37:16 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18yjQMTS20ySdb7+WU0dmS7DOM+2ETFbnxufYgUGt 1zHSufEtVqf1Y5
Message-ID: <4F1FBF3A.4090808@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:37:14 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366380094@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> from "Mike Jones" at Jan 25, 12 00:03:15 am <201201250028.q0P0SwiS000165@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943663801ED@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <2rkuh71k7eh4h1ciu15p6b2sss77u6qhtp@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <2rkuh71k7eh4h1ciu15p6b2sss77u6qhtp@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-15.txt> (The
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:37:22 -0000

On 2012-01-25 03:14, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> ...

+1

 > ...
> If you want to keep the distinction, you should offer an argument why
> this is something individual schemes should regulate (since having the
> same rules for all schemes is much simpler).
 > ...

Exactly. I've been asking this many times, but I'm not getting any 
answers except "we prefer it this way".

Best regards, Julian