[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [OAUTH-WG] realms

From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger at team.telstra.com>
To: "oauth at ietf.org" <oauth at ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:55:47 +1100
In-reply-to: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343784DF2782 at P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1124423C1E8 at WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343784DF2782 at P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>

> I think we should open an issue (unless there is already one) with HTTPbis about this

> given the current state of P7 and the opportunity to clarify this.

Opening an HTTPbis issue sounds ok -- though I am not sure which specific aspects need clarifying as I am not certain that the RFC 2617 spec text was the (reasonably direct) source of the different understandings.

James Manger
James.H.Manger at team.telstra.com
Identity and security team — Chief Technology Office — Telstra

References:
- [OAUTH-WG] realms
  - From: Manger, James H
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] realms
  - From: Eran Hammer-Lahav

Prev by Date: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for a New 2617 Scheme: Token
Next by Date: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposal for a New 2617 Scheme: Token
Previous by thread: Re: [OAUTH-WG] realms
Next by thread: Re: [OAUTH-WG] realms
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.