IETF Logo Mail Archive

[OAUTH-WG] Clarification: Authorization scheme :: Token vs OAuth

Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <dick.hardt@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 B7B4E3A6864 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.345
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.253, 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 AbESGqJLxu-7 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80BA3A6805 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxe12 with SMTP id 12so2572112yxe.32 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:content-type:subject :date:message-id:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=DEgcT0G/WGO1MIXVhMssu50r+lWgGDpvnZ0eeDb4cZE=; b=x6QiVU8Pwv0lhG5F8QIUY1CZjFwFcX2gW6+AclDDz69KUgL7LkgoGBel/vOqr0Fn/Z dMQOk1oyxT2HgZFSixX/L1xCv7Gr0Tow5hEjSUTjFAHwf8LKynjR1dyh9b8HTqLjEVp/ E+fErEhDSanzEXJ+nBPnVAcd8PBqhGEAh8IeA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=WZj9ll1SlZGHOFSWAKlxGP0QQqhYelNymLS+r1JVZsbE94xPGrm4nWC79xBXXj1XYP n5bMe86s7VRUqr1ORCIR34GESCgi5thz2PUDd7g6PnUfXQd5U5cojnzspGnxS2p1OqYA xlBpOXt8VH7TMHLuG12m1b/CYHd9S5BB3E1JM=
Received: by 10.150.56.32 with SMTP id e32mr5312084yba.127.1271651578612; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.8] (c-67-180-195-167.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.195.167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm1489997ywd.28.2010.04.18.21.32.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-12--860884908"
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:32:54 -0700
Message-Id: <9CEC5DA2-6D5F-4CDB-80CD-D24F80E19969@gmail.com>
To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Clarification: Authorization scheme :: Token vs OAuth
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 04:33:10 -0000

I recall some earlier discussion on calling the scheme Token vs OAuth and see that it is now Token per the example:

 Authorization: Token token="vF9dft4qmT"

Would explain or point out the logic of using Token rather than OAuth?

A related question: is the scheme case sensitive?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email