Makes sense to me.
________________________________
From: John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com>
Cc: paul Tarjan <paul.tar...@fb.com>; "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] consistency of token param name in bearer token type
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
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
