Re: [OAUTH-WG] JSON based access token requests for OAuth 2.1
Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Wed, 07 October 2020 10:02 UTC
Return-Path: <dick.hardt@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 C21973A0799 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 03:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70qzlRQyf7KQ for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 03:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B36753A047D for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 03:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f21so1348418ljh.7 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 03:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xTUoUz+yekcg55VDIWd3othPM6qaj2yMzwoK/sP1uNs=; b=m58rFUWncFaIyhDldLHMacCyRvWMf1A3+FpsLMKxap0WjqOANNAh37A30+JstVgeVF urQZhVRS+V0zF5x+2AZw3zHr5u7QW1uI2XcVojTwx5KwvdD8O97yXvy3BqS8G8aFc0qp DpvKCLzW+V5jMoB/l/NapRir7/zn77383Yqkgoc0bNbLkraVfk80FO7+rkSl+5Dd2TfZ T1CIIBBEBDFX+0Uk/QwjL4eXFDSbjENSTM7/bomoxmpPJapnXGQ5gORY6m8vTFBMUq2r AihZvTJRwHCAju8DNKKzaoOalAw8h/VmQODLDjcNF43GZMMZFxHB2kkLPuQYCx9H7+SK +ihQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xTUoUz+yekcg55VDIWd3othPM6qaj2yMzwoK/sP1uNs=; b=VPQIigHDvo+Z5npsiERYeMbDaMSL7Y2OnkojuAdvQJyHh1/fvxdG4S2oJiA0lKaIdg FZRO7lAy9g+qYuFM0V95BCEshmvPBrrqhUDXlRpEXhLIhoR2nsON85ZwvZs/BfBtMS5i F2ChkPy+xSpPvfrBlLtvnm8Bfg7hqe5U5/WzMq6s6G63Z/M2DbK9vyVirF3quNwz1XYz TCpW7BeUcrvzuyEsC6mt4tW83F88OWec6uOGjJ/w7LMR8o23P50NnkQycV93iW8A8UYv kFP8KNhCtUVX2asOEIQRuRzSlpJe/480MoGrrok0sSWa5kKyJOYUD99acQS0uAI4XL9s hTmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ivGFU0ePBaT9V4ApTubZ+sFKsHf6VMQvkx19CZ1p+BHIVJ9Rj OJblDbJM2E3G51P3qNGC44uc8CFExcFoMkXJxXM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx7WoKMpDMNanMWbife2njVsjemoRX4ek+n61yUhXrVA4hUGXPgVy7e6UKv74n5uMb1qrAHwjLSrapf2JWQths=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9e44:: with SMTP id g4mr830753ljk.246.1602064923366; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 03:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM7dPt1T6YkfOnTdcR65x4E54dnPuwZQ_k2mrMqfiho0eNyzMw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGBSGjqkuz=+V0HGPr0CQP77iE6O=fYUR+izOURSipX0hmNHtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM7dPt0nDQEc9tVvA-ZHbFSqeDaSBqbd2cQUeE446T2jngwbqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM7dPt0nDQEc9tVvA-ZHbFSqeDaSBqbd2cQUeE446T2jngwbqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 03:01:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD9ie-uP=5sk7WsEKJ1tgUJkQSipexvfUMLor4ZBXmPr-jdZNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com>
Cc: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>, oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa1a1205b111ce99"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/AbWLVyKYtRkHVVe7YjM_oY7kZzU>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JSON based access token requests for OAuth 2.1
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 10:02:08 -0000
Janak, thanks for the clarification. A constraint of the OAuth 2.1 draft is that it adds no new features beyond what has already been standardised and deployed. While I am a fan of JSON, supporting both application/x-www-form-urlencoded and application/json will negatively impact interoperability and add complexity as the content type will need to be negotiated. If it is any consolation, GNAP is starting off with application/json. /Dick ᐧ On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:10 PM Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > Let me clarify a bit. What I meant was the spec does not make it mandatory > to use x-www-form-urlencoded I am stating this as I did not see any > clause with the word "MUST" with regard to this. And also what I was > asking was not to change using x-www-form-urlencoded to json. More like > about the possibility of adding an example of how the parameters should be > used if the request is sent in JSON format like shown in Justin's draft. > This will in turn imply JSON formatted requests are also acceptable and to > anyone who wants to support this media type has guidance. > > Best Regards, > Janak Amarasena > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 8:40 PM Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote: > >> The spec does clearly require form-encoded POST requests to the token >> endpoint, it's not just an implication. The requests made include simple >> key/value pairs so there's nothing really gained by making this a JSON >> post. Changing that at this point would be a drastic breaking change to >> pretty much all existing code for very little benefit if any. >> >> That said, Justin Richer did already write up a draft exploring this >> topic, but it hasn't shown much interest in the group yet. >> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-richer-oauth-json-request-00.html >> >> Aaron >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 7:18 AM Janak Amarasena <janakama360@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> As per my understanding OAuth 2(RFC6749) doesn't mandate any specific >>> media type to be used in the access token request. The spec implies >>> application/x-www-form-urlencoded should be used. Since the media type >>> application/json is very popular and widely used now, any thoughts on >>> referencing the use of this as well for access token requests? >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Janak Amarasena >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >> -- >> --- >> Aaron Parecki >> https://aaronparecki.com >> >> _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >
- [OAUTH-WG] JSON based access token requests for O… Janak Amarasena
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JSON based access token requests f… Aaron Parecki
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JSON based access token requests f… Janak Amarasena
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JSON based access token requests f… Dick Hardt
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] JSON based access token requests f… 0x0010thx