I agree access_token is better. John B. On 2011-06-15, at 1:38 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> 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 _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
