IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON

Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <blowmage@gmail.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 A5BE428C377 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:19:45 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j3KiwzBgY6A3 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f191.google.com (mail-iw0-f191.google.com [209.85.223.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7933A6B66 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:59:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn29 with SMTP id 29so3420392iwn.17 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=w7nlWLBtU9A//7uGMKsrYUMbHuRUjmdELaizLlV95LU=; b=D95eoWQ7t8gXSRjkxYb18SteMLS4c2bxCP69l3Ok1t5WQ7PM8ZSGbiQLIz/moQJM9/ Cc1MsSyTgO22LMljfeJ+zvwE/gNURAG+UeauYOOJ2j9ohpuioVPTA+KYBHiAUNUT4HLc go9NNOiFJpKo9Yi60wcYENVY6MbsqesLKSyyg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=h7FNg9siBGLrlB3LICi0ZpOIHn0irLlo1y1RIeGovRQFSkyGU58kGZQYN0lXy63PqX 4vQpQjrnD6B3aKZtH3Btnc1MiNNOrF7ZNxwUyKDZae9hg7EOZudzWOufx3+zE0b3Rjrv 5xFJFdLyiJTz7dM2RjSfUyXGlwiYQkcSq5e20=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.192.138 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C7F1C3F0.327E6%eran@hueniverse.com>
References: <h2yf5bedd151004190757q27927b65na3e5c5744a53526a@mail.gmail.com> <C7F1C3F0.327E6%eran@hueniverse.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:59:03 -0600
Received: by 10.231.146.2 with SMTP id f2mr1986388ibv.23.1271692743568; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <n2lf5bedd151004190859u31ea13f4hbe2fbbe38d03de8f@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e64c06163e6c230484990a4d"
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON
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, 19 Apr 2010 16:19:45 -0000

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>wrote:

> You are missing the point.
>

No, I get it. But what I like about OAuth 1.0 was its simplicity. I don't
see how allowing either the server or client to suggest alternate encodings
allows OAuth 2.0 to do more. I don't think the added complexity is worth it.
Not everything needs to be configurable.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email