It should be pretty easy :-) Anyone objects to changing the parameter name from 'bearer_token' to 'access_token'? Let Mike know by 6/20 or he will make the change.
EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Mike Jones > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:15 PM > To: David Recordon; George Fletcher > Cc: paul Tarjan; oauth@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] consistency of token param name in bearer token > type > > If you can drive a consensus decision for the name "access_token", I'd be > glad to change the name in the spec. I agree that the current names are > confusing for developers. > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Recordon [mailto:record...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:06 AM > To: George Fletcher > Cc: Mike Jones; Doug Tangren; oauth@ietf.org; paul Tarjan > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] consistency of token param name in bearer token > type > > Yeah, can understand how we got here. Just found it quite confusing when > reading these two specifications together with an implementor's hat on. > > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:29 PM, George Fletcher <gffle...@aol.com> > wrote: > > Brief pointer to the "history" of this change. This change was adopted > > in draft 4 of the bearer spec as there were concerns with the previous > > parameter name of 'oauth_token'. The suggestion was made to use > > 'bearer_token' so that it matches the scheme used in the Authorization > > header. The thinking being that reading the bearer token spec would > > seem weird if the Authorization header used one name and the GET/POST > > methods used a different name. > > > > The 'bearer_token' name got a few +1 and no dissents. > > > > Full thread starts here [1]. Mike accepting the 'bearer_token' > > recommendation is here [2]. > > > > Thanks, > > George > > > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg05497.html > > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg05881.html > > > > On 5/28/11 12:30 PM, David Recordon wrote: > > > > Did a full read through of draft 16 and the bear token spec with Paul > > yesterday afternoon in order to do a manual diff from draft 10. The > > point Doug raised was actually confusing. Throughout the core spec > > it's referred to as access_token but then becomes bearer_token upon > > use. > > > > Just thinking through this from a developer documentation perspective, > > it's going to become confusing. Developer documentation focuses on > > getting an access token and then using that access token to interact > > with an API. Thus the code you're writing as a client developer will > > use variables, cache keys, and database columns named `access_token`. > > But then when you're going to use it, you'll need to put this access > > token into a field named bearer_token. > > > > Feels quite a bit simpler to just name it access_token. Realize the > > core spec never did this since we didn't want to trample on protected > > resources which might already have a different type of access_token > > parameter. oauth_token was a good compromise since developers would > > already know that they were using OAuth and thus a new term wasn't > > being introduced. That's no longer true with bearer_token since 99% of > > developers will have never heard of a bearer token. > > > > Googling for "bearer token" turns up Eran's blog post titled "OAuth > > Bearer Tokens are a Terrible Idea" and there isn't a single result on > > the first page which explains what they are. Binging for "bearer > > token" is equally scary. > > > > --David > > > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mike Jones > > <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > The working group explicitly decided that a different name should be > > used, to make it clear that other token types other than bearer tokens > > could also be used with OAuth 2. > > > > > > > > -- Mike > > > > > > > > From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Doug Tangren > > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:09 PM > > To: oauth@ietf.org > > Subject: [OAUTH-WG] consistency of token param name in bearer token > > type > > > > > > > > This may have come up before so I'm sorry if I'm repeating. Why does > > bearer token spec introduce a new name for oauth2 access tokens [1], > > "bearer_token", and before that [2], "oauth_token"? > > > > > > > > I apologize if this may sound shallow but, why introduce a new > > parameter name verses sticking with what the general oauth2 spec > > already defines, "access_token". It seems arbitrary for an auth server > > to hand a client an apple then have the client hand it off to the > > resource server and call it an orange. > > > > > > > > Was this just for the sake of differentiating the parameter name > > enough so that the bearer tokens may be used in other protocols > > without being confused with oauth2 access_tokens? > > > > > > > > [1]: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-04#section-2.2 > > > > [2]: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-03#section-2.2 > > > > > > > > -Doug Tangren > > http://lessis.me > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > Chief Architect AIM: gffletch > > Identity Services Engineering Work: george.fletc...@teamaol.com > > AOL Inc. Home: gffle...@aol.com > > Mobile: +1-703-462-3494 Blog: http://practicalid.blogspot.com > > Office: +1-703-265-2544 Twitter: http://twitter.com/gffletch > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
