From: Luke Shepard [mailto:lshep...@facebook.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:04 AM
To: jsm...@stanfordalumni.org; Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: Marius Scurtescu; OAuth WG
Subject: RE: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: prefixing parameters with oauth_
I know we are all identity geeks and love to know the protocol we
Hammer-Lahav
Cc: Marius Scurtescu; OAuth WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: prefixing parameters with oauth_
I'm normally no fan of namespaces or other forms of needless complexity, and
it's true that PoCo dropped the pdata_ prefixes to all its query parameters
that we'd originally pr
; > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:38 AM
> > To: Peter Saint-Andre
> > Cc: Marius Scurtescu; OAuth WG
> > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: prefixing parameters with oauth_
> >
> > On Apr 20, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >
> > > On
> -Original Message-
> From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of John Kemp
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:38 AM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre
> Cc: Marius Scurtescu; OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: prefixing parameters with
On 4/19/10 11:01 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>>
>> On 2010-04-19, at 9:46 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/18/10 6:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>>>
Given the practice that the authorization endpoint and the redirect_uri
can contain
On Apr 20, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/18/10 6:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>> Given the practice that the authorization endpoint and the redirect_uri
>> can contain URI query parameters, then differentiating between
>> application specific query parameters and OAuth protocol
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
> On 2010-04-19, at 9:46 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/10 6:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>>
>>> Given the practice that the authorization endpoint and the redirect_uri
>>> can contain URI query parameters, then differentiating between
>>
On 2010-04-19, at 9:46 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/18/10 6:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>> Given the practice that the authorization endpoint and the redirect_uri
>> can contain URI query parameters, then differentiating between
>> application specific query parameters and OAuth protocol p
On 4/18/10 6:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> Given the practice that the authorization endpoint and the redirect_uri
> can contain URI query parameters, then differentiating between
> application specific query parameters and OAuth protocol parameters by
> prefixing the OAuth parameters with oauth_ wou
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Marius Scurtescu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Evan Gilbert wrote:
> > I have a preference to *not* have the "oauth_" prefix on parameters when
> > redirecting back, but could be convinced.
> > The argument about collisions makes sense, but I think th
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Evan Gilbert wrote:
> I have a preference to *not* have the "oauth_" prefix on parameters when
> redirecting back, but could be convinced.
> The argument about collisions makes sense, but I think there are no known
> conflicts and you can always add a redirection l
I have a preference to *not* have the "oauth_" prefix on parameters when
redirecting back, but could be convinced.
The argument about collisions makes sense, but I think there are no known
conflicts and you can always add a redirection layer if a conflict arises in
the future and a web serving fra
On 2010-04-18, at 9:04 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>> Since calls to the token endpoint use POST, there can not be any confusion
>> between the parameters in the body of the message and URI query parameters
>
> Unfortunately in the Java world
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
> Since calls to the token endpoint use POST, there can not be any confusion
> between the parameters in the body of the message and URI query parameters
Unfortunately in the Java world there is confusion between POST and
GET parameters. The serv
I'm happy to hear that Facebook engineers are enjoying their job.
In choosing between long and ambiguous, I think we need to choose long. We
could shorten the prefix to oa_. Would that help? :)
On 2010-04-18, at 6:42 PM, David Recordon wrote:
> While Facebook platform engineers were quite dubi
While Facebook platform engineers were quite dubios of no oauth_
prefix after hacking on a draft implementation their opinion has
changed. They're now really enjoying shorter and cleaner paramater
names and found them to be easier to document and no more difficult to
implement.
On Sun, Apr 18, 20
(restarting discussion from
http://groups.google.com/group/oauth-ietf-wg/browse_thread/thread/8aeb31817ead4c2a/f19773643e0a8ba3?pli=1
with matching subject)
Given the practice that the authorization endpoint and the redirect_uri can
contain URI query parameters, then differentiating bet
17 matches
Mail list logo
