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

nov matake <matake@gmail.com> Mon, 20 May 2013 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <matake@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050E421F9644 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 15:21:13 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dXCq5IHbL1JO for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 15:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-da0-x22c.google.com (mail-da0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A59B21F9610 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 15:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z8so4175101daj.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 15:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=mioBK5ebzfpZWeo5x3CCSgApM+M4Q1wagDm9xsklpvc=; b=soi3J8/h3zxAFTDVM4oZaW+d+wViWHcyNXv3iWeeBp1JwWsbyXw/JhLj27AmLeW1dk GKWrZoc1IRv1w0IhEORtHzOb9eH6kcjgR+nzbIzqdXCS++U+PDb+ZHN7c/rYPonm/kv1 5YjHMUTb+W8LGZvWMbSwc1RYLdu3D6b6PKcwNILQt7CHbvs5VGnGU4tcXOTB4+vbq7PR s2+dKsnBKWvL8z1YDsZPtoVfUUztNjYFnKgzOmSf26rlCvomOgXNa9Ho0sCg5Q0R+0W4 iPSBYn4tAXp54G0C2dLyAOyBETp9I7Asf5WDGGcK8XrCb26/l7nDwHZRCgBwX9tznn4x 5yhw==
X-Received: by 10.68.177.33 with SMTP id cn1mr62852467pbc.189.1369088471611; Mon, 20 May 2013 15:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.35] (z197007.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp. [110.4.197.7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 3sm19435755pbj.46.2013.05.20.15.21.09 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 May 2013 15:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0550441D-A9DF-466B-B48A-134B55486184"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: nov matake <matake@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1369081433.10108.YahooMailRC@web184401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 07:21:07 +0900
Message-Id: <1AA85E6D-525D-4DCE-9A7D-B5573AF33E3E@gmail.com>
References: <519A3C9A.8060305@mitre.org> <1369081433.10108.YahooMailRC@web184401.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
To: Edmund Jay <ejay@mgi1.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 20 May 2013 22:21:13 -0000

+1

On 2013/05/21, at 5:23, Edmund Jay <ejay@mgi1.com> wrote:

> +1 for keeping names as is.
> 
> From: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
> To: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
> Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 8:10:13 AM
> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Proposed Syntax Changes in Dynamic Registration
> 
> 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
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth