Re: [kitten] OAUTH/SASL... to HTTP or not to HTTP, that is the question...

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:58 PM, William Mills <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The major question remaining for my draft is HTTP(like) or not for the SASL
> message format?  Please select one of the following:
>
> A)    The current message format is fine.
> B)    HTTP-like is OK as long as we limit the insanity.
> C)    HTTP in any form is a deal breaker for me.  Give me something simple.
> D)    None of the above, and I have a possible solution of my own to
> propose.

I'm not an implementor of this protocol.  Some day I might be.  I'm OK
with (B), but I'd prefer something saner than HTTP.  JSON is almost
perfectly sane (missing only a self-describing encoding of binary
data).  I want it to be simple, and I think HTTP-like-but-lite would
be OK, but there's so much off-the-shelf code and experience with
JSON...  If there's running code that has been deployed then I think
(B) is the best option.  HTTP-like with HTTP insanity is a deal
breaker though.

So count me as in favor of (B) if there's not enough support for (C).

Nico
--