Re: [OAUTH-WG] HTTP/1.0 and JSON

Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org> Wed, 15 June 2011 15:47 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 A4B0F11E80C7 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X9bJDP-6Hg-V for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D3011E8081 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 635EE21B043E; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:47:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imchub1.MITRE.ORG (imchub1.mitre.org [129.83.29.73]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D86321B0433; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:47:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [129.83.50.1] (129.83.50.1) by imchub1.MITRE.ORG (129.83.29.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.159.2; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:47:17 -0400
From: Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
In-Reply-To: <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234475E986A8B@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
References: <1308141703.2268.211.camel@chassis.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|2d472212bace21e440b5fb833192f747n5EDfn04tdb2|ecs.soton.ac.uk|1308141703.2268.211.camel@chassis.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E7234475E986A8B@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:45:28 -0400
Message-ID: <1308152728.29889.108.camel@ground>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] HTTP/1.0 and JSON
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:47:22 -0000

> > I couldn't find a conclusion to the May 2010 discussions about using x-www-
> > form-urlencoded vs. json nor a rationale in the spec for using JSON. Why do I
> > need to add a JSON lexer/parser to my library just to get key-value pairs that
> > can be represented by form-urlencoded?
> 
> Every modern platform has a JSON parser.

While JSON is widespread, it is an additional requirement. I've done
some work to define and XML encoding for OAuth tokens here:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richer-oauth-xml-00

The draft still needs to be updated to point to the right sections of
the OAuth2 spec, but the mechanics are still valid. 

The point of this is similar to your contention: if I'm already speaking
one wire format (XML), why would I want to deal with JSON just to do my
auth step? 

If you'd like to try defining a key-value encoding, we can publish an
extension draft for that as well.

 -- Justin