IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Reserved URI query parameter in draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 14 April 2012 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC3B21F8542 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GHVQhXEhPQUF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8213C21F84AF for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwd20 with SMTP id wd20so126425obb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=evKmZgq9S2KWpMt4WjIs6/8AZF8+3RgHrgskv/fK2ps=; b=kKtiV5rqN0Q2JPqLXoEVW0FeIcy4gleDQZqdL8I/5BR9U3qzZLdk+uS2gDQNLf8CUs KtF5s2BVwCny7xdaagXD3DuvM7+fGjOJ070cdGYNGK22lsztgkU2K+wwAQWBt7F7GaZb uTBySpMER8BJ59R2oQzh4jCbFoyJND3ZaFx6/J9ITD6OyDy5Ey3kbyEr1w3YYFTzAc25 281Jt1nm0XWiYiiEkFxXOBG4nFLAt2Z73JLsy6k5hC3eGioDJCKTjIaqEnrZPbTr86ze 5RMOhBl5WIySZ8+iJIH0KnfYa9xN8f7qKoW/D8gP5lEq40FQDlyikSNqUos+Kmb0ArlJ MH9w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.177.99 with SMTP id cp3mr6200752obc.28.1334390312055; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.29.6 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <E88A83EE-1212-4747-BFE4-F147B49EE088@gmail.com>
References: <4F866AC0.3000603@qualcomm.com> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2FE2816@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <CAHBU6iuR+2CfPsPdkjMJCSmzrX1B8_nLB=xp_NRZi7db78V8vw@mail.gmail.com> <EA3F224E-B219-4753-8D6D-27A1BDDF97FB@tzi.org> <01OEACFVDL5O00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> <E88A83EE-1212-4747-BFE4-F147B49EE088@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:58:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isCwrEVmtc4wtsOaFwWULBY8eh3x=vQkKp-_ZNmOkLKBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQngHpHHg+BcBDbc6KqQbh/i5C19xchvgE8mewLwyR105e7/czZgBMT1K9uiFdCHD0UVrLJE
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, "draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer.all@tools.ietf.org>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Reserved URI query parameter in draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 07:58:34 -0000

That would be http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-6

The fact that it’s kind of long, but still doesn’t find room for
reserved ?key=val pairs, is significant in this context. -T

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 13, 2012, at 10:58 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
>
>
> That said, the rules are what they are, and comparison of URIs has to be
> taken
> into account.
>
>
> What is the URI comparison rule you are referring to?
>
> -- Dick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email