IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON

Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <blowmage@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89043A6A12 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dAsAVPdTcED2 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f191.google.com (mail-pz0-f191.google.com [209.85.222.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466603A68BA for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk29 with SMTP id 29so4621824pzk.29 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wQaG1t+ud+pwuj3z1DvN51QMWsOpeUQv+IP6WY/cFOk=; b=DZBB+mz0L/0CyCYR101C9TmaChYAhCSa/ZCzvT+BrpZ43qSnyTgwprUvkfg0C2wLXy zrw5x91g6pENiuWq1a/6Hp1OkdhXECb0aFPcu5WGNUat9rEK0BhRRKDp2xImzq1ZLqD9 CKeQYvsebRSh06wlVn+afV/xGtD/JWVpcG1Dg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=tuvUeqFcsDydkC8Povv3SukaKBOoom/UFX76k7fTxxfKLhWMQym/p8hblzps5+HDiZ KpRqcLYarDZtpfZ/AYS3r48iYxnVYrjwZ/qLgpA+8TYMZNAQGMvPdJhINezycPSlBZHr FBMhhy/PtQR9N3A1uh1h778ayWIGmztNEtrZ8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.192.138 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4BCCA913.3010800@lodderstedt.net>
References: <h2yf5bedd151004190757q27927b65na3e5c5744a53526a@mail.gmail.com> <C7F1C3F0.327E6%eran@hueniverse.com> <n2lf5bedd151004190859u31ea13f4hbe2fbbe38d03de8f@mail.gmail.com> <4BCCA913.3010800@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:37:48 -0600
Received: by 10.140.82.9 with SMTP id f9mr4728591rvb.130.1271705868993; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <k2mf5bedd151004191237k27923ecfo1af9e591582027fa@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd146f89483d904849c1819"
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:38:03 -0000

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Torsten Lodderstedt <
torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:

>
> So what should be the singlemost encoding to be standardized? I would be
> unable to choose one.
>

I think form encoding is just fine. Its lightweight, minimalistic, and easy
to implement. I don't see a reason to switch from the 1.0 spec.

If the issue is poor implementations or devs not reading the spec, then
perhaps we should discuss a series of executable specs or a reference
implementation. (I know I sure could have used that when I implemented
OAuth.) Just my two cents.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email