IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Open Issues: Group Survey (respond by 5/13)

"Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> Mon, 10 May 2010 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.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 845313A6AC4 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2010 17:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.387
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.312, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
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 xf5n0QijoQ5W for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2010 17:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipxcvo.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxcvo.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.135.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694063A6ACA for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 May 2010 17:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,358,1270389600"; d="scan'208";a="2594944"
Received: from unknown (HELO ipcbvi.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.217.204]) by ipocvi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 10 May 2010 10:55:10 +1000
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,5977"; a="1679215"
Received: from wsmsg3756.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.84]) by ipcbvi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 10 May 2010 10:55:11 +1000
Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by wsmsg3756.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.84]) with mapi; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:55:10 +1000
From: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
To: "OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org)" <oauth@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:55:09 +1000
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Open Issues: Group Survey (respond by 5/13)
Thread-Index: Acrv1jA22NMhzJrkSMyGHo4rbwxUSwAAft1w
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E112631B2E83@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E72343B3AB46E1C@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <1F6D82E6-7544-4845-916F-7361165ADA4B@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1F6D82E6-7544-4845-916F-7361165ADA4B@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Open Issues: Group Survey (respond by 5/13)
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, 10 May 2010 00:55:23 -0000

> 1. Server Response Format
> 
> A. Form-encoded only (original draft)
> B. JSON only (current draft)
> C. JSON as default with form-encoded and XML available with an optional request parameter

I vote for B

B doesn't stop specific services also offering form-encoded or XML variants -- particularly if that matches the rest of their API. A client app written specifically for such a service could still avoid JSON.
Choice B means a generic client needs to support JSON, which I feel isn't unreasonable.


> 2. Client Authentication (in flows)
> 
> A. Client authenticates by sending its credentials using special parameters (current draft)
> B. Client authenticated by using HTTP Basic (or other schemes supported by the server such as Digest)

>> C. support both flows in the spec.

I vote for B+.
The spec messages have no dependence on any specific client auth mechanism.
The spec says client apps capable of authenticating with a shared secret MUST support HTTP BASIC.

--
James Manger

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email