IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: prefixing parameters with oauth_

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Tue, 20 April 2010 05:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.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 C890C3A6A21 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.732
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.732 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 W5fn0D+AM4FH for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45A03A6A2A for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3K51a7C009184 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:01:40 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1271739700; bh=bJK+0C0VAdR9ibnFOjC/xA7ZHMc=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=SbkscyT79ye3jr50eaUraUZspYfRXQmnsRUIfAyb4SVywScJmbRGphC+xFk6h/+WA 3De0fHvP4OxzzVlzowJBg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=NpgNHIDBJF/qaA8Y0bl5Rhwp/iGLUSC+WMFGmlMltIMN75RqLsfP3Ycq6ouJZlgge WMPOHKjUj85rc/0zNGE3A==
Received: from pva18 (pva18.prod.google.com [10.241.209.18]) by wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3K51ZwW007486 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:01:35 -0700
Received: by pva18 with SMTP id 18so3457716pva.5 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.107.2 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CB3B4494-2A0B-4CEC-9BE4-0EF06FA6AB94@gmail.com>
References: <14411661-A227-4DCA-86B3-A9C5FB8055D7@gmail.com> <4BCD31BF.5090701@stpeter.im> <CB3B4494-2A0B-4CEC-9BE4-0EF06FA6AB94@gmail.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:01:15 -0700
Received: by 10.141.187.9 with SMTP id o9mr5113126rvp.211.1271739695109; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <m2w74caaad21004192201k4eb9af84q20cb10f7a44d9edd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Issue: prefixing parameters with 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: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 05:01:52 -0000

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2010-04-19, at 9:46 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/10 6:46 PM, Dick Hardt wrote:
>>
>>> Given the practice that the authorization endpoint and the redirect_uri
>>> can contain URI query parameters, then differentiating between
>>> application specific query parameters and OAuth protocol parameters by
>>> prefixing the OAuth parameters with oauth_ would seem a useful way to
>>> minimize conflicts.
>>
>> Can't application developers avoid conflicts by giving their parameters
>> names other than those already used in OAuth?
>
> If changing the parameters is available to them. They may be trying to shimmy OAuth into an existing system.

Even if the developer can chose a parameter that is not used  by OAuth
right now, he/she has no guarantee that this parameter name will not
be introduced by a future version of the spec.


> I don't know how common the issue is, just pointing out why the prefix was there in the past.

Yes, chances for a collision are very small, but still, well worth
using the prefix IMO.


Marius

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email