Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

[Edmund Jay <[e-mail]>]

I'm OK with changing expires_at and issued_at while keeping 
token_endpoint_auth_method the same.



________________________________
From: Roland Hedberg <[e-mail]>
To: Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thu, May 23, 2013 7:28:22 AM
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration

As an implementor like Justin, I see no problem with changing "expires_at" and 
"issued_at" to the values proposed below.
It's a minor code change and I don't have a large deployment to deal with.

I also agree with Justin and Phil about "token_endpoint_auth_method".

22 maj 2013 kl. 20:34 skrev Phil Hunt <[e-mail]>:

> +1
> 
> I also agree with Justin's comment on token_endpoint_auth_method. 
>Never-the-less, I did want to pass along the feedback that some were confused.
> 
> The expires_at, issued_at thing though is particularly confusing (though the 
>text may be clear) and is a higher priority issue in my opinion.
> 
> Phil
> 
> @independentid
> www.independentid.com
> [e-mail]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-05-22, at 11:19 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
> 
>> Speaking as an implementor, I'm actually in favor of changing "expires_at" and 
>>"issued_at" to the values proposed below. It would require some minor code 
>>changes on my end, but the impact would be minimal, and I think that the new 
>>names are *much* more clear to new developers. I think it will save us a lot of 
>>questions and headaches going forward. I believe that changing it now will have 
>>minimal impact on any deployed and running code (there are no large-scale 
>>services that I am aware of), and it will make things clearer. So I vote for "B" 
>>for #1 and #2.
>> 
>> I believe "token_endpoint_auth_method" is sufficient as is, since the client is 
>>the only thing that authenticates to the token endpoint. 
>>
>> 
>> 
>> [[ Note: As an editor, I don't believe it's really in my power to make that 
>>change unless there's support in the working group for making it. I really want 
>>more feedback from people, with explanation if you can. ]]
>> 
>>  -- Justin
>> 
>> 
>> On 05/20/2013 11:09 AM, Justin Richer wrote:
>>> Phil Hunt's review of the Dynamic Registration specification has raised a 
>>>couple of issues that I felt were getting buried by the larger discussion (which 
>>>I still strongly encourage others to jump in to). Namely, Phil has suggested a 
>>>couple of syntax changes to the names of several parameters. 
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1) expires_at -> client_secret_expires_at
>>> 2) issued_at -> client_id_issued_at
>>> 3) token_endpoint_auth_method -> token_endpoint_client_auth_method
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'd like to get a feeling, especially from developers who have deployed this 
>>>draft spec, what we ought to do for each of these:
>>> 
>>>  A) Keep the parameter names as-is
>>>  B) Adopt the new names as above
>>>  C) Adopt a new name that I will specify
>>> 
>>> In all cases, clarifying text will be added to the parameter *definitions* so 
>>>that it's more clear to people reading the spec       what each piece does. 
>>>Speaking as the editor: "A" is the default as far as I'm concerned, since we 
>>>shouldn't change syntax without very good reason to do so. That said, if it's 
>>>going to be better for developers with the new parameter names, I am open to 
>>>fixing them now.
>>> 
>>> Naming things is hard.
>>> 
>>>  -- Justin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

-- Roland
"Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.” - Mark 
Twain




_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth