Re: [OAUTH-WG] Should registration request be form-urlencoded or JSON?

For history, the original UMA registration spec from whence this all grew was JSON-in and JSON-out. It's feeling like this is coming back around.

Pro:
 - more REST-ish (particularly if we use real REST style like URL templates and verbs)
 - consistent data structures
 - possible use of rich client data structures like lists and sub-objects

Con:
 - unlike the rest of OAuth, which is form-in, JSON-out
 - major change from existing code
 - possible overhead for existing OAuth libraries which haven't had to deal with JSON from clients

If we're going to do this, we should dive in with both feet and define a full RESTful API with all appropriate verbs and CRUD ops, and define it at the OAuth DynReg level as well.

-- Justin

On Feb 4, 2013, at 4:25 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>>
 wrote:

Now that we're returning the registration state as JSON, it's pretty inconsistent for the registration request to instead be form-url-encoded. The case can be made for switching to JSON now - especially in light of possibly wanting to convey some structured information at registration time.
I realize that this is a big change, but if we're going to do it, we should do it now.
As a precedent, apparently SCIM requests are JSON, rather than form-url-encoded.

                                                                -- Mike

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org<mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth