IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 17:26 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 666553A6765 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.738
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, 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 hEuccYkyfrOJ for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B36A3A6BEA for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com [10.3.21.12]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3JHK6Vr009536 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:20:06 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1271697606; bh=uiDVGR3ODjeAFNH3Eli0DRT2UBU=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=AD7veGZC29jABvnD2KHUUG+J4zapRT+cPs8qTNJbCq66BFeYofp6f1Hr7S4tVNbNI J1W9IVkyJ38tVHVfh7M1A==
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=NyVQXGUOFQCnkd2iUGVjHmvnr6oJ2nMnChGZjwG37XoJd7uJo+SjsHafgcoqKj5S3 XehPDLtFV78ppKJKvEujg==
Received: from pzk32 (pzk32.prod.google.com [10.243.19.160]) by hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3JHK4Qt002233 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:20:04 +0200
Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32so2935920pzk.21 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.107.2 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <l2kc8689b661004190728l44977e21m82e5cc579031fa00@mail.gmail.com>
References: <14411661-A227-4DCA-86B3-A9C5FB8055D7@gmail.com> <z2m74caaad21004182104g3c6d08b1m6aa7c815bce7d558@mail.gmail.com> <046B4F5D-A58E-4D78-AA01-A85BFB76C6EA@gmail.com> <l2kc8689b661004190728l44977e21m82e5cc579031fa00@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:19:43 -0700
Received: by 10.140.88.33 with SMTP id l33mr4567810rvb.4.1271697603448; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <i2m74caaad21004191019x74a0cd2erb22093cfd9271070@mail.gmail.com>
To: Evan Gilbert <uidude@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Marius Scurtescu <marius.scurtescu@gmail.com>, 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: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:26:00 -0000

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Evan Gilbert <uidude@google.com> wrote:
> I have a preference to *not* have the "oauth_" prefix on parameters when
> redirecting back, but could be convinced.
> The argument about collisions makes sense, but I think there are no known
> conflicts and you can always add a redirection layer if a conflict arises in
> the future and a web serving framework is unwilling to change.
> (I've become less of a fan of namespacing over the years - my default has
> switched to waiting until there is a known conflict to solve)

If the conflict is found after the spec is defined then it is too late.

In many cases namespaces are needed, regardless if we like them or
not. A prefix is a very weak namespace, but in this case extremely
useful IMO.

Marius

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email