IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fw: Breaking change in OAuth 2.0 rev. 23

Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com> Wed, 14 March 2012 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <eran@hueniverse.com>
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 566EE21F8877 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 98rcMmS9UtjJ for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.180.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D02FB21F8830 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13558 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2012 20:44:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO p3plex2out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net) (184.168.131.14) by p3plex1out01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with SMTP; 14 Mar 2012 20:44:07 -0000
Received: from P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) by p3plex2out02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with bizsmtp id lYk11i0090SoFT401Yk7EL; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:44:07 -0700
Received: from P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([10.6.135.20]) by P3PW5EX1HT002.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET ([72.167.180.20]) with mapi; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:29:08 -0700
From: Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:29:00 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Fw: Breaking change in OAuth 2.0 rev. 23
Thread-Index: Ac0CH8w+h0BU0mxlTl6CuYP5n5P96gAATnCw
Message-ID: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453AFF0896E@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <CAGdjJpLBCyvg21zuGi1jWK58hkDL4Ff7-xdJ0dy0WZpvNPPrKA@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453AFF08903@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <CAAJ++qE3KcFgJey7xXzW8dkTPzvtcu_ke7abkOEMS4hwi93yEg@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453AFF08919@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <CAGdjJpK6dMzSyoxEb_2rQcB-anXzvWaW-PLdYTZW_jECieBSMg@mail.gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453AFF08932@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436641D4E3@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723453AFF08949@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <CAAJ++qG+jdej64rjWM8V4MU_uxEc-2WoT4MKqhD_9ef0jBYwgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBzDdeJViT_zOJ4QQQoo4Soy0iJJL_EK5zGd+94J1h7RQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBzDdeJViT_zOJ4QQQoo4Soy0iJJL_EK5zGd+94J1h7RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fw: Breaking change in OAuth 2.0 rev. 23
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, 14 Mar 2012 20:44:08 -0000

I've proposed two alternative languages and open to more. It would be great if people could just reply stating which they like best.

EH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:20 PM
> To: OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fw: Breaking change in OAuth 2.0 rev. 23
> 
> > I am sorry, but with this language this is a different spec with
> > different compliance profiles and without supplying enough guidance
> > for creating interoperable server implementations for common
> > deployment models.
> 
> As I read this thread, I see two things come out clearly:
> 
> 1. Eran didn't intend to make the change that some read into this, and
> 
> 2. enough people interpret this as a change that Eran didn't intend that it's
> worth fixing.
> 
> Everyone agrees on how it should be -- right?  So let's not worry about
> whether the text is or isn't confusing, and instead focus on a small change to
> the text that will keep the meaning that's intended and that takes the
> confusion away from those who think something drastic has changed.  That
> should be easy to do, and quick and non-controversial to wrap up.
> 
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email