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

Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> Mon, 20 May 2013 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jricher@mitre.org>
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 CE16621F9636 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 09:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 pXzJmUjwsDBd for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1743521F963A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id AD4C61F02F4; Mon, 20 May 2013 12:42:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (imccas03.mitre.org [129.83.29.80]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8421F0DE1; Mon, 20 May 2013 12:42:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.146.15.13] (129.83.31.56) by IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (129.83.29.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.342.3; Mon, 20 May 2013 12:42:37 -0400
Message-ID: <519A5261.1010506@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 12:42:09 -0400
From: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>
References: <519A3C9A.8060305@mitre.org> <9D2C4D6F-EBC0-4313-B3B1-5981A865A604@oracle.com> <519A4607.1030900@mitre.org> <DF861D80-C924-427D-9678-08AF9CCB5A61@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF861D80-C924-427D-9678-08AF9CCB5A61@oracle.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020204040207000206090500"
X-Originating-IP: [129.83.31.56]
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 16:42:49 -0000

I, of course, disagree. But that's what we're trying to figure out as a 
working group, after all.

  -- Justin

On 05/20/2013 12:41 PM, Phil Hunt wrote:
> This draft isn't ready for LC.
>
> Phil
>
> On 2013-05-20, at 8:49, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org 
> <mailto:jricher@mitre.org>> wrote:
>
>> But also keep in mind that this is last-call, and that we don't 
>> really want to encourage avoidable drastic changes at this stage.
>>
>>  -- Justin
>>
>>
>> On 05/20/2013 11:21 AM, Phil Hunt wrote:
>>> Keep in mind there may be other changes coming.
>>>
>>> The issue is that new developers can't figure out what token is 
>>> being referred to.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On 2013-05-20, at 8:09, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org 
>>> <mailto:jricher@mitre.org>> 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
>>>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>