Re: [OAUTH-WG] consistency of token param name in bearer token type

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

I agree access_token is better.

John B.
On 2011-06-15, at 1:38 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> It should be pretty easy :-)
> 
> Anyone objects to changing the parameter name from 'bearer_token' to 'access_token'? Let Mike know by 6/20 or he will make the change.
> 
> EHL
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of Mike Jones
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:15 PM
>> To: David Recordon; George Fletcher
>> Cc: paul Tarjan; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] consistency of token param name in bearer token
>> type
>> 
>> If you can drive a consensus decision for the name "access_token", I'd be
>> glad to change the name in the spec.  I agree that the current names are
>> confusing for developers.
>> 
>> 				-- Mike
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Recordon [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:06 AM
>> To: George Fletcher
>> Cc: Mike Jones; Doug Tangren; [e-mail]; paul Tarjan
>> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] consistency of token param name in bearer token
>> type
>> 
>> Yeah, can understand how we got here. Just found it quite confusing when
>> reading these two specifications together with an implementor's hat on.
>> 
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:29 PM, George Fletcher <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>> Brief pointer to the "history" of this change. This change was adopted
>>> in draft 4 of the bearer spec as there were concerns with the previous
>>> parameter name of 'oauth_token'. The suggestion was made to use
>>> 'bearer_token' so that it matches the scheme used in the Authorization
>>> header. The thinking being that reading the bearer token spec would
>>> seem weird if the Authorization header used one name and the GET/POST
>>> methods used a different name.
>>> 
>>> The 'bearer_token' name got a few +1 and no dissents.
>>> 
>>> Full thread starts here [1]. Mike accepting the 'bearer_token'
>>> recommendation is here [2].
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> George
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg05497.html
>>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg05881.html
>>> 
>>> On 5/28/11 12:30 PM, David Recordon wrote:
>>> 
>>> Did a full read through of draft 16 and the bear token spec with Paul
>>> yesterday afternoon in order to do a manual diff from draft 10. The
>>> point Doug raised was actually confusing. Throughout the core spec
>>> it's referred to as access_token but then becomes bearer_token upon
>>> use.
>>> 
>>> Just thinking through this from a developer documentation perspective,
>>> it's going to become confusing. Developer documentation focuses on
>>> getting an access token and then using that access token to interact
>>> with an API. Thus the code you're writing as a client developer will
>>> use variables, cache keys, and database columns named `access_token`.
>>> But then when you're going to use it, you'll need to put this access
>>> token into a field named bearer_token.
>>> 
>>> Feels quite a bit simpler to just name it access_token. Realize the
>>> core spec never did this since we didn't want to trample on protected
>>> resources which might already have a different type of access_token
>>> parameter. oauth_token was a good compromise since developers would
>>> already know that they were using OAuth and thus a new term wasn't
>>> being introduced. That's no longer true with bearer_token since 99% of
>>> developers will have never heard of a bearer token.
>>> 
>>> Googling for "bearer token" turns up Eran's blog post titled "OAuth
>>> Bearer Tokens are a Terrible Idea" and there isn't a single result on
>>> the first page which explains what they are. Binging for "bearer
>>> token" is equally scary.
>>> 
>>> --David
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mike Jones
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The working group explicitly decided that a different name should be
>>> used, to make it clear that other token types other than bearer tokens
>>> could also be used with OAuth 2.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>                                                             -- Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>>> Of Doug Tangren
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:09 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: [OAUTH-WG] consistency of token param name in bearer token
>>> type
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This may have come up before so I'm sorry if I'm repeating. Why does
>>> bearer token spec introduce a new name for oauth2 access tokens [1],
>>> "bearer_token", and before that [2], "oauth_token"?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I apologize if this may sound shallow but, why introduce a new
>>> parameter name verses sticking with what the general oauth2 spec
>>> already defines, "access_token". It seems arbitrary for an auth server
>>> to hand a client an apple then have the client hand it off to the
>>> resource server and call it an orange.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Was this just for the sake of differentiating the parameter name
>>> enough so that the bearer tokens may be used in other protocols
>>> without being confused with oauth2 access_tokens?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1]:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-04#section-2.2
>>> 
>>> [2]:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-v2-bearer-03#section-2.2
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Doug Tangren
>>> http://lessis.me
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Chief Architect                   AIM:  gffletch
>>> Identity Services Engineering     Work: [e-mail]
>>> AOL Inc.                          Home: [e-mail]
>>> Mobile: [phone]           Blog: http://practicalid.blogspot.com
>>> Office: [phone]           Twitter: http://twitter.com/gffletch
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth