I though we'd come to a decision on the versioning too :) IMHO, it's better to push this burden of versioning into the token itself if necessary. I think it's better from a developers perspective to pass an oauth_token, because it's cleaner. Most deployments will already have versioned tokens to enable upgrading these for internal changes, so why can't the OAuth version be contained in there too? Given the option to simplify the implementation for a API provider (Big Company, or someone who has to know how OAuth works) vs API consumer (Developer, or someone who usually just wants some data), I hope everyone agrees our focus should be the Developer.
While we (Facebook) didn't have OAuth 1.0 tokens to deal with and so don't have the same backward compatibility issues, we've already changed our tokens and introduced new ones a couple of times and this had no impact on the parameter name being used. -Naitik On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Justin Richer <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: > It was discussed before, but I don't remember there being any consensus > in the group. What are the practical reasons for not using "oauth2" > namespacing in the one place we still use namespacing? Most of what I've > heard seems to sound like "I don't like it to have a 2 on it". > > I don't want to have to set up the OAuth 2 system to have to catch > failed cases of the OAuth 1 protocol. A good OAuth 2 call and a bad > OAuth 1 call should be distinguishable from the start. Also, what about > when we finally get a signed-request going? I would assume that that's > going to add back in things like oauth_signature, oauth_nonce, and the > other parameters whose absence you should filter on. > > -- Justin > > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:37 -0400, David Recordon wrote: > > I thought this topic had been beaten to death before. An OAuth 1.0 > > protected resource request includes a variety of oauth_ parameters > > whereas OAuth 2.0 just has oauth_token. > > > > > > --David > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Brian Eaton <bea...@google.com> > > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Justin Richer > > <jric...@mitre.org> wrote: > > > +1 on OAuth2 header, and I also want to see oauth2_token in > > URI and form > > > parameter methods. > > > > > > Good point about the query parameter names needing to be > > unambiguous. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OAuth mailing list > > OAuth@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
