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

As I pointed out in the other thread on this, it’s an architectural
botch. Go and look in RFC3986 and find where it discusses reserving
keywords in this part of the URI.  Hey, it’s not there!  (hint, hint)

What *is* there is a lengthy discussion of the very important task,
done probably millions of times per second, of comparing two URIs and
deciding if they're equivalent, i.e. identify the same thing; this is
done by every piece of caching infrastructure and webcrawler.  Do all
these have to be retooled to peek in the arguments and change their
decision based on whether some bits are just outh_* crud?    (That
question is rhetorical).

This is a deeply bad idea. -T

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/13/2012 08:43 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> I certainly don't object to doing that. In fact I don't object to dropping this
>> nasty hack from the document, although perhaps documenting it as *not*
>> standardized and explaining why it sucks would be even better.
>
> So I've a possibly naive question:
>
> Why is it harmful to standardise a parameter name for use in
> query strings?
>
> Note: I'm not asking if access_token is a good or bad name for
> one of those, nor how exactly to standardise one well or badly,
> nor who should do that, but it seems from the comments here that
> some folks are against the idea of standardising anything after
> the authority is a bad idea, and I don't get why exactly that
> might be the case.
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss